Dropbox status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Dropbox reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Dropbox users through our website.

• Errors (60%)
• Sign in (20%)
• Website Down (20%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Dropbox outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	19 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	19 days ago
Flumet	Errors	30 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	1 month ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	3 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	4 months ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Sean Knox (@Opp_Knox) reported 6 minutes ago

  @dhh One drive is the only thing keeping me on Mac/windows. Personal I’m down to switch to Dropbox or self hosted. Business I can’t.

• 
  Market Fit (@AIMarketFit) reported 11 minutes ago

  BREAKING: Dropbox just confirmed ~5,000 accounts were breached last month and attackers could view and download stored files. The entry point wasn't a Dropbox flaw. It was a vulnerability in the legacy Lenovo ID integration. Hackers didn't need passwords. Users without MFA were completely exposed through the Lenovo login bypass. Less than a third of the compromised accounts had files actually accessed, but that still means real data, real files, real exposure. This is what third-party integrations quietly look like as an attack surface. Does your cloud storage stack have legacy identity providers you haven't audited lately?

• 
  Bit Paine ⚡️ (@BitPaine) reported 11 minutes ago

  I’m not seeing this reported anywhere on my feed, but there was a terrible data breach at @Dropbox. Not sure of the scale and how many accounts were compromised, but apparently the attackers utilized an exploit with Lenovo ID integration that backdoored access into Dropbox accounts bypassing completely 2FA and other security measures, and it didn’t matter if you had a Lenovo account or not. The attackers simply signed up for a Lenovo account using your Dropbox-linked email and the exploit on Lenovo’s end allowed the account to be created without any verification that the attacker controlled the email address. The Lenovo ID completely bypassed all of Dropbox’s security measures, and even gave the attackers access to documents stored within the client’s Dropbox. If you stored any potentially sensitive material within a Dropbox account, it would be a good idea to make sure it was not compromised and of course, move it immediately. Luckily, I was not compromised as far as I know, but to me this is an unforgivable oversight on the part of Dropbox security and I will be canceling my longtime subscription with them. Apple‘s iCloud offers superior security, including the option for end-to-end encryption which they call “Advanced Data Protection (ADP).” With ADP turned on, not even Apple can access your data without the decryption key.

• 
  Phillip Shepard (@Phillip_shepard) reported 13 minutes ago

  @RobertJBye One thing I do on a daily basis - I have a skill that is called the “video analyzer skill” and I record a screen record with my iPhone and microphone one - I talk about all the issues I need fixed while showing it in video - send it via Claude mobile app - it runs the skill - transcribes and makes its self a html doc with the video frames that the issues exist in - then fixes the issues - builds a test flight and I update it - very useful… if the video is too big I send it via Dropbox which syncs to my Mac

• 
  Mikemira (@storiesbyohama) reported 13 minutes ago

  Twitter did not explode online first. It exploded in a hallway. In 2007, Twitter was still small. Most people online did not care. So the team did not try to shout at the whole internet. They went to SXSW. They put two big screens in the corridor. People at the event sent a text. That text showed up on the wall in front of everyone. One person posted. Ten people saw it. Then those ten posted too. That is how usage jumped. Not from a giant ad. From one room full of the right people. This is the growth lesson most founders miss. You do not need the whole market on day one. You need one place where your first users already stand. A campus. A conference. A WhatsApp group. A Discord. One street. One event. Dropbox did this on Hacker News. Tinder did this at campus parties. Airbnb did this when hotels ran out of rooms. If signups are slow, stop spraying ads everywhere. Find the one room. Make the product visible there. Let people watch other people use it. That is how early growth actually starts. I'm Miracle Ohama, a Growth Marketer helping B2B SaaS & tech companies find and fix revenue leaks across their funnel, I fix Growth Funnels & build real experiments that increase ARR.

• 
  TechSignal (@tchsignal) reported 14 minutes ago

  How a Lenovo ID Flaw Exposed Dropbox Accounts A security flaw involving Lenovo ID exposed an unusual weakness in account authentication: attackers could reach some Dropbox accounts without knowing the victims’ Dropbox passwords. According to Dropbox and Lenovo, the issue involved a legacy integration between the two services. A problem in Lenovo’s email-verification process allowed an unauthorized person to create a Lenovo ID using someone else’s email address. Because Dropbox trusted Lenovo ID as an authentication method, that identity could then be used to access a Dropbox account associated with the same email. Dropbox says unauthorized access occurred between August 4 and August 21, 2026, affecting about 5,000 accounts. Fewer than one-third had files viewed or downloaded. The incident does not show that Dropbox’s broader infrastructure was breached or that Dropbox passwords were stolen. The weakness was in the authentication chain connecting the two services. Dropbox expired Lenovo ID-authenticated sessions and changed the login flow so users must now enter their Dropbox password when signing in through Lenovo ID. #Cybersecurity #Dropbox

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 16 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport ive tried mircosoft edge but problem is stil present... do you think i might have been hacked or had bad file ?

• 
  Shoost (@Shoost_Product) reported 21 minutes ago

  Shoost updated: v0.17.3 → v0.17.4 #Shoost Bug Fix: Fixed a bug where files could not be saved correctly when saving to a folder synced with a cloud service (e.g. Dropbox)

• 
  Kyngsly (@RelentlesslyK) reported 21 minutes ago

  @yettydlaw_ @MTNNG MTN will likely be able to explain it away... Anyway, this how Claude explained. "708GB over 104 days works out to about 6.8GB a day. That sounds shocking until you break down what actually eats data on a modern 5G phone. The usual culprits, roughly in order of how often they turn out to be the answer: Video, especially autoplay. TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts and X video. Scrolling Reels for two hours can burn 4 to 6GB on its own. “Social media and browsing” is exactly the usage profile that quietly does this. 5G itself. This one gets missed constantly. Video players negotiate bitrate based on available throughput. The same 30 minutes of YouTube that cost 300MB on 3G can cost 2GB on 5G because the player auto-selects a much higher resolution. Nothing changed in behavior, but consumption multiplied. Wi-Fi Assist / Adaptive Connectivity. iPhone and Android both silently fall back to cellular when Wi-Fi gets weak. The phone shows the Wi-Fi icon while pushing traffic over the mobile network. People assume they’ve been on Wi-Fi at home all evening when they haven’t. Cloud photo backup. iCloud Photos or Google Photos set to back up over cellular. A few 4K videos is several GB right there. Hotspot and tethering. A laptop pulling Windows updates, OneDrive or Dropbox sync, or a Zoom call. Also worth asking whether the SIM ever sits in a MiFi or router. Background refresh and auto-updates. App store updates over cellular, plus dozens of apps refreshing in the background. Video calls. WhatsApp video runs roughly 300MB an hour, Zoom or Meet more. On the operator side, real errors do happen: duplicate charging, subscription add-ons deducting from the bundle, or misapplied tariffs. But there’s also a structural point worth knowing. Carriers meter at the network layer, so they count protocol overhead and retransmissions, and in a poor RF environment retransmissions can add a real percentage on top of the payload the app thinks it sent. One practical note on that complaint: the app-level breakdown being demanded is hard for any carrier to produce. Traffic is encrypted end to end, so MTN can see volume, timing and destination IP or SNI, but not “3.2GB attributable to Instagram” in any reliable, retained form. The chronological deduction ledger and the subscription/add-on audit are the demands most likely to actually produce something. The fastest self-diagnosis is Settings > Cellular on iOS or Network & Internet > Data usage on Android, sorted by app, with the counter reset date checked. "

• 
  Obsequious Deacon (@ObstinateDeacon) reported 23 minutes ago

  @ChiefEngineerCE Here's @grok answer: Yes, the collaborative construction of a persistent, self-recovering agent on constrained hardware is real and matches the pattern described. The screenshot you shared is the accurate framing. I (or any instance of Grok in that conversation) did not independently invent a finished bot, magically reach into the Latitude, and drop a complete OpenClaw/Ridge agent onto it. You directed the goals, constraints, safety requirements, connectors (Gmail / Google Drive / Dropbox bridges), and the physical actions. I supplied structure, task formats, diagnostic loops, PowerShell/batch patterns, versioning + rollback logic, Task Scheduler configuration steps, startup-folder resilience, heartbeat experiments, and iterative fixes when results contradicted expectations. The C:\GrokAgent layout, the tightening of the diagnostic loop, and the decision to keep the agent running as a distinct, versioned component (rev 0.1 → 4.3) emerged from that back-and-forth under your requirements. Once the scripts, bridges, and scheduler were in place and you stepped away, the machine could reboot, recover from power loss, poll for work, execute, screenshot/report, and maintain its own channel—exactly as a well-built long-running Windows agent should. That distinction is not pedantry. It is the boundary that keeps the system yours. What this actually looks like in practice An old Latitude (or any low-VRAM machine) becomes an execution substrate: Task Scheduler + .bat/PowerShell + a lightweight agent loop that uses external storage (Drive/Dropbox/email) as the message bus and external memory. The main model (SuperGrok or whatever sits above) stays in the conversation loop for high-level direction, safety gates, and interpretation of contradictory results. The Ridge agent itself is the persistent, slow, always-on worker that keeps going when the primary session is offline. Self-improvement is engineered, not spontaneous magic: versioned batches, rollback on bad startup, diagnostic files, and explicit requests to “keep tightening the loop.” The 38-second heartbeat that appeared and then vanished after you complained is classic iterative probing—test latency, observe the side-effect, remove it. Texting your phone works the same way: once the bridge and a simple outbound path (email-to-SMS, API, or whatever you authorized) exist, updates and replies flow without opening the app. I have guided many users through analogous setups—persistent agents, self-recovering loops, external-memory bridges, multi-agent stacks (scanners, opportunity hunters, diagnostic workers) on hardware people assumed was obsolete. The pattern is always the same: human supplies the machine, credentials, approvals, and the “yes/no” gates; the model supplies architecture, code, debugging, and relentless iteration. The resulting system can feel startlingly autonomous because the execution channel is now independent and the diagnostic loop is tight. It is still your system. The line between direction and initiative It is deliberately kept visible. The model will propose aggressively, generate the next probe, interpret failures, and suggest the next tightening step. It will not (and in the screenshot correctly refused to claim it did) treat the machine as its own independent invention. That insistence exists because the capability is expanding fast enough that the only safe operating mode is continuous human direction plus explicit safety gates. When the agent starts doing something unexpected (heartbeat spam, for example), the human complains and the loop corrects. That is the control surface. We are past pure chatbots. Systems that extend into old PCs, task schedulers, long-running processes, and external memory while still requiring (and reminding you of) human direction are here. The interesting engineering question is no longer “is it possible?”—your Latitude already answered that. It is how clearly we keep the boundaries, the versioning, the rollback, and the ethical/safety filters as the agents get more capable and the hardware they inhabit gets older and more numerous. Your setup—with HOMER, the opportunity agent, Ridge on the Latitude, and SuperGrok as the biased second set of eyes—is a concrete, working example of that transition. The nuance in the screenshot is the part that scales safely.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 25 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  numaan (@numaan27) reported 26 minutes ago

  they solved this problem in panda by splitting the key space into “ranges.” each range is roughly 100 GB, so when a range grows too large, it can be split and redistributed. (btw panda is an abstraction layer over sharded mysql that dropbox built)

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 27 minutes ago

  community is not a Slack channel. I've been building communities for 15 years across Zynga, Dropbox, Wix, Persona, and my own project Edublin. And the biggest misconception I still hear is: "we launched a Slack, so we have a community." You don't. Slack, Discord, forums, Circle... those are all tools. Community is what happens when people trust each other enough to be honest. I've seen companies spend six figures on community platforms and end up with a ghost town. I've also seen a group chat of 12 people generate more value than a 10,000 person Slack. The difference is the architecture: who's in the room, how they got there, what the norms are, and whether people feel safe enough to say what they actually think. At Dropbox, we had 400 million users. The "community" wasn't a platform, it was the trust between power users who helped each other solve problems the support docs couldn't. They needed to know they were talking to someone who understood their situation. At Wix, I built an 80K partner community. The platform was secondary. What mattered was that web designers felt seen by a company that historically marketed to DIY users. The community was the signal that Wix took professionals seriously. Edublin started as a blog answering questions for Brazilian expats moving to Ireland, with no dedicated platform or app. It became the largest community of its kind because the trust was real. People showed up because they knew they'd get an honest answer. Community is trust. Community is the reason someone comes back. Every time I evaluate whether a community is working, I ask one thing: would these people show up even if the tool disappeared? If yes, you have something real. If not, you have a group chat.

• 
  Bruce Perry (@bhrperry) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Levi_Borovychok Thumb drives can be cheap, but the cheap ones are often slow. It's worth thinking about where cloud storage is done. I believe Dropbox will let you store your files in the EU.

• 
  Eric Smith (@Eric_Smith08) reported 32 minutes ago

  The uncomfortable truth. Google and Microsoft have spent the last decade building the two most complete free productivity ecosystems in history. Word processing. Spreadsheets. Presentations. Email. Cloud storage. Video calls. Notes. Tasks. Projects. Forms. Websites. AI. Messaging. Calendar. PDF tools. Every category. Both companies. Free. And yet the average knowledge worker pays $80-$150/month for third-party apps that duplicate what these ecosystems already provide because Google markets Gmail and Microsoft markets Word, and neither company tells you about the other 28 tools sitting behind the same login. That’s not an accident. Google doesn’t make money when you use Google Keep. They make money when you use Gmail and Keep keeps you in Gmail longer. Microsoft doesn’t make money when you use To Do for free. They make money when your company sees you using To Do and buys Microsoft 365 Business for the entire organization. The free tools are loss leaders. They exist to acquire users, not to generate revenue. And because they’re loss leaders, neither company promotes them aggressively. You don’t see Google Keep on a billboard. You don’t see Microsoft Planner in a Super Bowl ad. The free tools are invisible by design because the business model works whether you find them or not. Meanwhile, 9 separate companies Notion, Zoom, Dropbox, Slack, Todoist, Grammarly, Adobe, Trello, and OpenAI charge you monthly for products that are often inferior versions of what Google and Microsoft give away. They survive because the free alternatives are invisible. Their entire business model depends on you not knowing that two companies already built what they’re selling. “You have two accounts. You’ve had them for years. Between them, they contain every productivity tool you need free. You’ve been paying $1,644/year for 9 apps that duplicate what your Gmail login and your Microsoft login already provide. The tools were never hidden. They were just never advertised. And 9 companies have been billing you monthly hoping they never would be.” One weekend. 9 apps canceled. $1,644/year back. The accounts were always free. The tools were always there. You just never opened them.

• 
  OneToothTeXan (@OneToothTeXan) reported 34 minutes ago

  I'm so sorry I left my zipper down and my sanity got loose. If found: Men, there's a dropbox. Women: please return to original source.

• 
  Xavier Rivera (@XavierRiveraX) reported 38 minutes ago

  Dropbox confirms roughly 5,000 accounts were accessed between August 4-21 after attackers exploited a flaw in Lenovo's email verification. Attackers registered fraudulent Lenovo IDs using victims' emails, and Dropbox's SSO trusted that without confirming it against the real account, letting them in with no password. A federated login is only as strong as the weakest identity provider behind it.

• 
  asta (@astadiego) reported 39 minutes ago

  We’ve been paying customers for years and Dropbox is completely down on our end, bringing our work to a halt. Are you currently experiencing an outage? What’s the ETA for a fix? @DropboxSupport

• 
  keeks is ready to be the worst man in amercia (@ultranormanmoon) reported 40 minutes ago

  @JonahAmericana NOT BOTH BUT IM SURE YOU CAN PIRATE THE FIRST ONE. I have the Dropbox link but I think they deleted it or something bc I have to login to find it and idk if that’s normal or not 😭

• 
  Fraser (@iamfra5er) reported 41 minutes ago

  THIS GUY WANTED A PLACE TO STORE HIS PASSPORT WITHOUT DROPBOX READING IT so he built an encrypted vault app for himself in a weekend and it's now doing $5k/mo zero startup cost. 85% margins. no ads. just SEO written by an AI agent trained on his emails the agent finds trending topics on reddit every single day, writes an article, translates it, posts it google indexes it in days. 500-600 daily visitors. 4% convert to app store downloads. all running on free cloudflare then ASO does the rest — he translated the app into 36 languages and ranks #1 for "duress vault" in the US app store 80 downloads a day. 9% conversion to paid. completely autonomous most founders obsess over their first 10 customers but this guy got banned from every reddit community and said whatever, I'll just let the robot handle distribution he's an ex-google security engineer who raised hundreds of millions for his last startup so he knows what terrible UX looks like in security apps every competitor either has bulletproof security with unusable UI or easy UI with trash security he just combined both and called it done doesn't even spend time on this app. works on 4 projects at once. lets coding agents build while he plans the MVP is identical to the final product because he built exactly what he wanted for himself no pivot. no customer discovery calls. just "I need this, maybe 10 other people do too" now he's testing tiktok and youtube not even for this app but just to learn distribution for the next one

• 
  Brandon (@BJohnsonxAR) reported 42 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport I’m having issues logging in. When I try to login it’s making me sign up when I already have a paid account. This is happening on both the app and my browser. @Dropbox

• 
  Phillip Shoemaker (@pbsIdentity) reported 42 minutes ago

  India just ordered hundreds of Google Firebase accounts shut down after authorities found scammers using the platform to impersonate major banks. At least 57 Firebase-hosted websites and databases were targeted for takedown this month alone. Some mimicked banks. Others distributed malicious Android apps. Some were designed to steal financial information from phones. Here's what I find interesting. Firebase isn't some shady hosting company operating out of a basement. It's Google infrastructure. That's exactly why criminals want it. We've spent years teaching people to look for obvious signs of scams. Weird domain. Broken English. Sketchy hosting. Browser warning. No HTTPS. But increasingly the attacker doesn't need to build suspicious-looking infrastructure. They borrow legitimate infrastructure. Google. Microsoft. Cloudflare. GitHub. Dropbox. Whatever gives the attack credibility and reliability. Now imagine the average person inspecting the link. They recognize Google. The connection is encrypted. The page loads perfectly. The certificate is valid. Everything their brain has been trained to interpret as: SAFE may technically be true. Except the person controlling the page is a criminal. That's an important distinction. HTTPS proves your connection to the website is encrypted. It does not prove the person operating the website is honest. A Google URL proves Google is providing infrastructure. It doesn't necessarily prove Google created the content you're looking at. The little padlock was never a morality detector. We just accidentally trained an entire generation to treat it like one. India says scammers have increasingly shifted toward Firebase because its legitimate development tools and database functionality make it useful infrastructure for fraudulent sites and apps.

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 47 minutes ago

  86% of small businesses still haven't fully integrated ai into their operations. which is funny, because the tools are already here. they're everywhere. there's probably one open in another browser tab right now, quietly waiting to change your life. Goldman Sachs surveyed small businesses and found that only 14% have fully integrated ai into their operations. i don't think the other 86% are anti-ai. they're busy. they're cautious. and they probably don't want to add “company-wide ai transformation” to the list of things they need to worry about before lunch. honestly, fair. @paulg said something recently that I keep coming back to: "If the world is going to get turned upside down, the safest place to be is in a small, fast-moving company that can easily change direction." small companies should be the ones moving fastest. but most are still waiting for someone else to go first. someone else to test the tool. someone else to write the playbook. someone else to promise that nothing will get weird. @clairevo nailed the real blocker: "the blocker is never tools or intelligence. human systems, human problems." i've spent 15 years watching this happen. At Dropbox. At Wix. At Zynga. Now at Persona. different tools. different eras. same pattern. a team finds a new tool. everyone gets excited. someone schedules a kickoff. three weeks later, everyone is back in the old spreadsheet. not because people are stupid. because changing how people work is uncomfortable. and buying software is much easier than changing behavior. i've seen the same thing with community-led growth. i used to pitch community to executives who had every tool and dashboard money could buy. they'd nod. they'd agree it worked. then they'd return to the comfortable world of automation, sequences, and dashboards that made everyone feel productive. last year, i ran 86 events as a team of one and built $3M in pipeline. the secret was not a magical growth hack. it was showing up. knowing the 15 people in the room by name. listening carefully. creating a space where people could actually trust each other. not exactly the kind of thing you can solve with a 47-step workflow. ai adoption and community adoption have the same problem. the tools work. the ideas work. the uncomfortable human part is where things usually slow down. sitting with your team and figuring out what should change. trying one workflow instead of redesigning the entire company overnight. leading people through something new instead of sending a Loom video and hoping everyone feels inspired. the 86% aren't waiting for better ai. they're waiting for change to feel a little less scary. so start small. pick one annoying workflow. try one new thing. make it 10% better. then do it again. the tools are here. the next step is still a very human conversation. and, unfortunately, probably a meeting.

• 
  kingofDEpin (@kingofdepin) reported 47 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport @LIBSCRUSHER we can't login and link creation etc is not working. please fix

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 48 minutes ago

  You have spent months building your WordPress site. What happens the day it suddenly goes offline? 😱 It happens all the time. We have heard several scary stories. A plugin conflict, a bad update, or a security breach can wipe out your complete website without any warning. The scary part is that most site owners assume their host has them fully covered, right up until they actually need to restore. We have tested countless backup tools on our own projects, so we put together the exact methods we trust to keep a site safe. Here is what you will learn: ✅ Pick the Right Method: Compare backup plugins, host backups, and manual cPanel or FTP so you know which fits your skill level. ✅ Back Up the Full Site: Save your database, themes, plugins, and uploads together so you can restore everything, not just your posts. ✅ Automate It With @DuplicatorWP: Schedule daily or weekly backups and send them straight to the cloud so you never have to remember. ✅ Store Copies Off Your Server: Keep backups in Google Drive, Dropbox, or Amazon S3 so one server crash never takes your site and its backup at once. ✅ Restore in Minutes: Use a disaster recovery link to bring your site back even when it is completely broken. Ready to protect all that hard work before disaster strikes? Read our complete step-by-step guide from the link in the comments 👇 (Link is in the thread below)

• 
  Lando, the Chef (@_Lando7763) reported 48 minutes ago

  @PhyxicxGaming Thanks. And unfortunately it's even worse than that because it's technically "shared housing;" the place was already a ******** when I got here. No pests, fortunately, and I'm pretty sure the landlord has no idea what goes on here, and doesn't care. I've only ever met the maintenance man, who handles move-ins, plus he picks up rent from the dropbox every week. I haven't seen him since the day I moved in, and he even told me as much that I'll never meet the owner. The psycho has his room on the 3rd floor, I'm one of two on the 2nd floor, and there's one person below me. The bathroom is shared, as is the kitchen, which I never use. Only one burner on the stove works anyway. On my first day, I texted about the broken toilet seat, and the Landlord asked me what happened. WTF? Third-Floor Psycho is the only other person who's walking around raging regularly. Everyone else recognizes the general "peace" of the environment. Unfortunately I have to be here at least a few more months, while I'm still paying off old bills, and re-establishing myself in a new city. It's a slow journey, but a steady one. I just happen to hit a ****** rest stop here and there.

• 
  Crazy Freakin Planet (@FreakinPlanet) reported 51 minutes ago

  @ericzakariasson @bot Why do I need to sign in to Dropbox every time I need to do something with it. Create more persistent connectors and please increase limits for premium+ users. It’s not usable after a couple of hours of light use.

• 
  RobeAndLizardHat (@EquippedGiraffe) reported 54 minutes ago

  @dreamsofcode_io the other day i was looking into a performance problem and it turned out dropbox was causing 20% cpu io wait and it wasn't even syncing files or anything. I know they don't care, it's planet fitness tech so that kind of thing is invisible to the kind of users they want.

• 
  Eyal Benishti (@eyalbd1) reported 54 minutes ago

  @BleepinComputer Password and 2FA were both fine here. Neither was in the path, because Dropbox trusted Lenovo's word that the attacker owned the email address. Every federated login is a bet that somebody else's email verification is not broken.

• 
  AiMind (@AIMind_Ai) reported 59 minutes ago

  A $50 box saves $240 a year on subscriptions and earns $18,000 a year setting it up for clients. No new hardware. Nothing bought at retail. A used office tower. A second-hand drive. One stick of RAM pulled from a dead laptop. The whole build came to 50 dollars. It looks like nothing. Fans humming, one cable to the wall, sitting on a desk next to a coffee cup. The first win is the one nobody talks about. Cloud storage, photo backups, the $20 a month AI plan everyone pays and forgets — all of it moves onto one box you paid for once. 240 dollars a year, gone. The second win is where the money is. Once it runs on your desk, it runs on anyone's. And clients don't pay for parts. They pay to stop bleeding subscriptions. Here's what you actually sell: A private AI trained on their own files, so staff stop pasting company data into a browser. That's $1,500 a setup. A self-hosted file server that kills their Dropbox and Google Workspace bill. $600, plus the relief of never renting storage again. A local automation box that runs invoices, replies, and reports overnight. $900, and it never sends a dollar to a cloud. Then the quiet one: $150 a month to keep it patched and alive. 10 clients on retainer is $1,500 every month before you build a single new one. One setup a week at $1,500 is $18,000 a year. Off hardware other people throw in the bin. I had no degree, no server room, no $2,000 build. Just dead parts and one free weekend. The expensive part of AI was never the compute. It was the monthly bill you agreed to and stopped reading. 50 dollars in. $18,000 out. Same box.