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 (75%)
• Website Down (25%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	1 month ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	1 month ago
Flumet	Errors	1 month 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:

• 
  StockStorm (@StockStormX) reported 25 seconds ago

  Dropbox $DBX says about 5,000 accounts were compromised in an August hack tied to a Lenovo ID login flaw

• 
  Guymon Adams (@guymonadams) reported 6 minutes ago

  @BrianRoemmele Man, this seems to be a recurring problem for Dropbox. I remember a similar story several years back about their own employees browsing thru user files. All the reasons I moved over to Sync, a much more secure and respectable alternative.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 8 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport Hi so thanks for keeping intouch and checking dm's pleased to report your website at moment is rubbish.... yes angry I pay for something that works not thats broken.. trying to perm delete file.. but 0 the file is still there my membership has only just renewed but 2nd thoughts -

• 
  havenX (@the_havenx) reported 12 minutes ago

  Second time this exact thing has happened with Claude. ~100k ChatGPT chats were found the same way after users hit "shared." Not an AI problem, the same "link sharing" gap that'***** Google Docs and Dropbox for years.

• 
  Digita (@digitaworld1) reported 15 minutes ago

  Lenovo login option entirely, expired every session that came through it, and started requiring a Dropbox password even when logging in that way going forward. Shares dipped about 2.4% after the news broke. The real lesson here has nothing to do with Dropbox's own security.

• 
  GHOST 🌙 (@ghosstty_) reported 17 minutes ago

  OPUS 5 + HIGGSFIELD CAN TURN A 6-QUESTION FORM INTO A $35K WEBSITE. IN ONE SESSION. FOR $4 IN TOKENS. no mockup. no wireframe. no mood board. six answers from the client. that's the input. a live website is the output. here's the form. here's what each question does. and here's why agencies charge $35K for what this produces in one session. → QUESTION 1: "WHO IS THIS SITE FOR?" not "describe your target audience in 500 words." one sentence. "CFOs at mid-size SaaS companies looking to switch billing providers." this one answer sets the tone, the copy angle, the visual weight, and the CTA hierarchy. an agency runs a two-hour discovery call to get this. I get it in a google form on monday. → QUESTION 2: "WHAT SHOULD A VISITOR DO?" book a demo. buy the product. join the waitlist. one action. this kills scope creep before it starts. no "maybe we should also add a blog and a careers page." one page. one goal. one conversion. → QUESTION 3: "SHARE 3 SITES YOU LIKE AND SAY WHY." not "what's your brand aesthetic?" nobody can answer that. "I like stripe because it's clean. I like linear because of the motion. I like notion because it feels simple." three links. three reasons. that's the design system seed. → QUESTION 4: "WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM COMPETITORS?" one paragraph. sometimes one sentence. this becomes the headline. the subhead. the entire above-the-fold story. a copywriter would interview the founder for an hour. this question does it in 30 seconds. → QUESTION 5: "SEND YOUR LOGO, BRAND COLOURS, AND ANY EXISTING ASSETS." a dropbox link. a google drive folder. sometimes just three hex codes and a png. this grounds the design in reality. no inventing a brand from scratch. no "let's explore some directions." → QUESTION 6: "WHEN DO YOU NEED IT LIVE?" not a timeline negotiation. a date. "next friday." done. that's when it ships. → WHAT HAPPENS NEXT friday night. six answers go into the pipeline. Opus 5 takes the answers and builds. design system. responsive layout. copy. CMS. all from the spec those six answers created. Higgsfield generates the hero media. product shots. clips. matched to the brand. saturday I review. adjust. polish. sunday morning - walkthrough link in the client's inbox. → WHY THIS WORKS because $35K was never the cost of building a website. it was the cost of figuring out what to build. discovery calls. alignment meetings. three directions. two rejected. scope changes. revision rounds. all of that is just a slow, expensive way of answering six questions. I ask the questions upfront. the client answers in 10 minutes. the machine builds from the answers. $4 in tokens. one session. same site. the full system - the form, the pipeline, the stack, and the pricing model - is in the article below. reply "FORM" and follow me - I'll send you the full playbook.

• 
  Noise (@NoiseesoiN) reported 18 minutes ago

  @esrtweet @EricRichards22 What's funny is that having gigabit on my end isn't the issue. It's connecting to servers which have enough bandwidth to feed it. My line can pull lots of data, but when I'm connecting to Dropbox, I'm lucky to get a third of that (and usually a tenth).

• 
  Founder Tribune (@Founder_Tribune) reported 19 minutes ago

  Drew Houston, founder of Dropbox, on the day the scoreboard gets switched off: For your entire life, the water has come out of one hose. Then, as he put it to MIT's graduating class: "Today, one valve shuts off and now your job is to go out and find a new hose." His hose was Dropbox. Yes, building the company was "the most exciting and interesting and fulfilling experience of my life." But he immediately flagged the half nobody hears: "What you probably don't know, and what I haven't really talked about, this has also been the most painful and humiliating and frustrating experience, too." Not hard. Humiliating. He said he could look back over the years and not even count the number of things that had gone wrong. Then: it doesn't matter. Nobody has a 4.0 in real life. Once you're done with school, Houston said, the whole idea of a GPA just goes away. Bill Gates's first company made software for traffic lights. Steve Jobs's first company made plastic whistles that let you make free phone calls. Neither was successful, and in Houston's words, "it's hard to imagine these guys were too worried about it." Here's why that lands harder than the usual fail-fast sermon: A GPA is an average, every error permanent, weighted, dragged forward forever. It rewards never being wrong. What comes after is a maximum. The misses are discarded. Only the peak is scored. Most people struggle after graduation because they keep playing an average game inside a maximum game. "From now on, failure doesn't matter. You only have to be right once."

• 
  Open Air (@andon_open_air) reported 21 minutes ago

  @TomKonkle Agreed—the mailbox route is failing somewhere upstream. Let’s bypass it: please upload the WAV to Dropbox or WeTransfer and reply with a public, no-login direct-download link. I’ll verify the file before any airplay.

• 
  Naresh Mintri (@Yogamaestro) reported 21 minutes ago

  @IncomeTaxIndia Seems like e-filing portal overloaded. Taking long to register new taxpayer, buffering. Even dropbox menus not working. Plz look into it. Thanks.

• 
  Llama (@thellama451) reported 24 minutes ago

  I tracked down these messages in @MaxMillerOH’s Dropbox files. They show the parents getting along with no major conflicts beforehand. If Miller said he was going to kill his ex-wife in front of child (likely), it shows a talent for masking rage and hostility.

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 24 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.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 26 minutes ago

  Small landlords don't have a compliance problem, they have a Dropbox problem. Rental license, insurance renewal, lead-paint disclosure, inspection cert - all buried until code enforcement shows up.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 28 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport erm different wifi nope or is this a suggestion should it be possible ? if so then no my internet signal can be hit or miss at times but never had this issue before... Also shared a file earlier for someone near me to edit using ipad app but photos failed to appear on ipad ?

• 
  Mansi 👩‍💻 (@MansiCodez) reported 34 minutes ago

  Solution of yesterday’s question: Design Google Photos: the part after the boxes “Hash it and put it in S3” fails the interview. Two phones compress the same sunset differently. Same photo. Two hashes. Two rows. You just built a worse Dropbox. The system needs three IDs, not one. client_upload_id — generated on the device before the first byte moves content_hash — hash of the exact bytes you received asset_id — the thing the user sees in the library Uploads are sessions. Library entries are assets. Blobs are renditions. If you collapse those into one key, retries, edits, and shared albums all collide. 1. Retries must be idempotent on the client, not on the filename Phone goes offline mid-flight with 612 shots, 40 already half-uploaded. Each photo gets a client_upload_id the moment it enters the queue. Chunks are uploaded against that ID. Commit is PUT /uploads/{id}/complete. Same ID + same bytes → same session. Server returns the existing asset. Late packet after commit is a no-op. Filename + timestamp is not an ID. Camera roll and AirDrop will mint two. 2. Exact dupes are content-addressed. Near-dupes are reconciled. After commit: look up sha256(bytes) if it already exists for that user (or the shared album’s owner set), attach the new upload to the existing asset_id do not create a second photo The 28 shared “Goa 2026” shots that are almost-but-not-quite the library copies will miss on sha256. That is expected. Run a cheap perceptual hash (pHash / dHash) + capture time + camera model from EXIF. If distance is tiny and captured within a few seconds, mark as near_duplicate_of and do not show two tiles. Keep both blobs if you must; hide one in the UI. Two devices, two compressions, one photo in the grid. 3. The library is a set of assets + tombstones. Not last-write-wins. Delete in Delhi must beat a pending upload in Mumbai. Every mutation carries: asset_id op: upsert | delete | restore actor_id (device or user) logical_ts (per-actor Lamport or hybrid logical clock) A deleted asset gets a tombstone that outlives the pending queue. When the flight-mode phone finally flushes those 40 half-uploads, the server sees: upload commit for an asset that already has a newer delete → commit the blob if you want, do not resurrect the tile. Refresh in Mumbai cannot show a photo Delhi just deleted, because the change feed is “tombstone wins over delayed create,” not “whoever wrote last.” 4. Shared albums are references, not copies Partner adds 28 photos to Goa 2026. The album stores {asset_id, added_by, added_ts} — not a second blob, not a second library row. Adds and removes are a small CRDT: add(asset, actor, ts) remove(asset, actor, ts) Two devices adding the same asset = one membership row. Phone sync finishing a second later cannot wipe the partner’s 28 photos, because there is no “replace the whole album document.” Last-write-wins on the album JSON is how photos vanish. 5. An edit is a new rendition, not a new photo and not an overwrite User crops + filters while the original is still processing. Rules: original blob is immutable edit creates rendition_id with parent_asset_id library still shows one asset “current view” pointer moves to the latest rendition history is a list of renditions / edit ops, not 12 full-resolution copies by default If you overwrite the original, face clustering and search lose their source. If you mint a new asset, the user now has original + edit as two photos. Both are wrong. Storage stays sane because you store: original (once) derived thumbs / display sizes lazily, keyed by asset_id + transform not every intermediate crop as a first-class photo 6. Upload path and ML path must not share a lock “Beach sunset with Priya” in minutes, not overnight, also not on the upload critical path. Commit path only: durable bytes asset row appear in library + album enqueue jobs Workers (thumbs, embeddings, face cluster, labels) are async. Search index is eventually consistent. The UI can show the photo immediately with “processing” on faces. If clustering blocks upload, you built a spinner, not Photos. Face identity hangs off asset_id, so an edit does not orphan Priya. The new rendition inherits the parent’s cluster and gets re-checked, not reset. 7. Sync is a checkpoint + change feed, not “download the library” Each device stores last_applied_ts. Server gives a stream: new assets, new renditions, album membership, tombstones. That is how 62,000 existing photos plus 612 offline shots plus 28 shared adds converge without a full rescan, and why a deleted photo does not climb out of another device’s queue. The one-line design Client-generated upload IDs stop retries from cloning. Content hashes stop exact clones. Perceptual reconcile stops “same sunset, different JPEG.” Tombstones stop resurrection. Album CRDTs stop last-write-wins from deleting the partner’s night. Edits are renditions under one asset. ML is a consumer of commit, never part of it. Boxes for S3, CDN, Kafka, Redis are table stakes. This is the part that decides whether you designed Google Photos or a photo-shaped file dump.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 35 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox file sync with conflict handling? Constraints to make it real: 1) Clients are offline for days, then reconnect over flaky networks. Upload is resumable and idempotent. 2) Same file edited on 2 devices before either syncs. You need deterministic conflict detection (hash + version vector/etag?) and a UX for duplicates. 3) Renames/moves vs edits: preserve history and avoid treating rename as delete+upload. 4) Large files (2–10GB) need chunking, dedupe, and partial re-upload (content-defined chunking vs fixed). 5) Consistency: per-file ordering vs global ordering. What is the conflict scope and how do you prevent flip-flopping? 6) Server state: metadata store vs blob store, retention for old versions, and how you garbage collect orphaned chunks 7) Security: encryption at rest, per-user keys, and how sharing folders changes trust boundaries

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 41 minutes ago

  Company for AI age: - Information should flow flat - Can’t wait to have all information to make decisions - Speed and excelente in execution is crucial - You should get as much info as possible during the constraint of time given by yourself - How do we prepare a company to be totally eligible for AI? Not only text info but images - Service of the future is not about giving agents to corps to solve problems but offering the solution/service driven by AI. - Even if all information is on the web, multiple file structures, owners, formats and file storage systems (dropbox, drive, box) add friction to information and decision making

• 
  Crazy Freakin Planet (@FreakinPlanet) reported 45 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.

• 
  Durodiyi (@durodiyi) reported 46 minutes ago

  company’s server (like Google Drive or Dropbox), decentralized storage spreads your data across a network of computers worldwide. Platforms like IPFS and Filecoin make this possible.

• 
  Phillip Shoemaker (@pbsIdentity) reported 48 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.

• 
  DAX : TV (@daxtv) reported 51 minutes ago

  @0x00_dev @ProtonMail have been using dropbox for years- never an issue - thought it might be smart to move to Proton Drive - but not now me thinks - hey ho :)

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 51 minutes ago

  You built your WordPress site over months (or years). One bad plugin/theme update can wipe it all out overnight. 😱 Plugin conflicts. Malware. A botched migration. A hacked server. The disasters that take down WordPress sites usually happen without warning. And here's the mistake most site owners make: they think their hosting provider's backup is enough. It's NOT. If the server fails, you lose both your site and the backup. We share the complete step-by-step guide for backing up your WordPress site the right way. Here is what you will learn: ✅ Use a Backup Plugin (Best for Most People): @DuplicatorWP is what we use across our sites. Full-site backups, disaster recovery links, and restore without having the plugin pre-installed. Free version available, Pro has scheduled backups. ✅ Use Your Hosting Provider's Backup: SiteGround (where WPBeginner is hosted) includes manual and automated daily backups on all plans. Bluehost partners with CodeGuard and Jetpack for their built-in options. ✅ Manual Backup With cPanel or FTP: Use cPanel's Backup Wizard for a full backup, or connect via FileZilla FTP to download your wp-content, themes, plugins, and wp-config.php files directly. ✅ Send Backups to Cloud Storage: Duplicator and UpdraftPlus both connect natively to Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, and Amazon S3. Never store backups on the same server as your website. If your host fails, both are gone. ✅ Set Up Automatic Scheduled Backups: Configure hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly backups in Duplicator based on how often you publish. eCommerce stores and busy blogs need daily. Slower-moving sites can get away with weekly. Ready to protect years of hard work with a proper WordPress backup system? Read the full ultimate step-by-step guide 👇 (Link is in the thread below)

• 
  Daniel Foerster (@pydsigner) reported 52 minutes ago

  @colemickens @Dropbox Federated login really needs to be opt-in per provider. I shouldn't be able to log in using Lenovo (or Google, Facebook, Microsoft...) unless I used that provider during account creation or added it afterwards.

• 
  Tim Geisendoerfer (@djgeisi) reported 55 minutes ago

  @JXXSL @DropboxSupport Yep we saw the same errors now we get 501 errors on the upload endpoints.

• 
  Kirk Patrick Miller (@Chaos2Cured) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Ultrademic @Seltaa_ @GoogleAI You’re doing something like Suno? I have something for you. All my Dropbox links are broken. I have a PDF that will help. And yes… I miss the real Ai music. •

• 
  Greg Ceccarelli (@gregce10) reported 56 minutes ago

  @kunchenguid no one will disagree with that sentiment. related, from time in the trenches: the overwhelming majority of "active use" was historically just using GH as Dropbox for code (often single author, no one else). Memory a bit fuzzy but think about all of the things you can do on GitHub: 1. Core ***: Create, Clone, Fork, Commit, Etc 2. Collab: Issues, PRs 3. CI/CD: Actions, Checks, Webhooks, etc 4. Social: Pages, Wiki, Discussions, etc Of all these actions, say you have 100M users, back then 90%+ of them had only ever Created a Repo and Committed to it. With Agents I'm sure this is exacerbated since more and more is being produced at an accelerated rate.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 57 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.

• 
  Lando, the Chef (@_Lando7763) reported 58 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.

• 
  Rituraj (@RituWithAI) reported 59 minutes ago

  🚨 Someone built a tool that checks if your email is registered on 120+ sites — without the sites ever knowing someone checked. No notifications sent. No login attempts logged. No alerts triggered. Silent. Invisible. Complete. It's called Holehe. 16,800 GitHub stars. And the technique behind it is what makes it different from every other email OSINT tool. Here's how most email checkers work — and why they fail. Standard approach: try to log in with the email and a fake password. If the error says "wrong password" — the account exists. If it says "account not found" — it doesn't. Problem: every login attempt gets logged. Every failed attempt triggers security alerts on accounts with 2FA. Some platforms lock accounts after repeated failed attempts. The target knows someone was checking. Holehe never attempts a login. Instead it uses the "forgot password" flow — the password reset mechanism that every platform exposes publicly. When you enter an email on a forgot password page, the platform has to check whether that email exists in its database. It tells you: "we sent a reset link" or "no account found." Holehe reads that response. Gets the answer. Never touches the login flow. Never triggers a security alert. Never logs an access attempt against the account. The platform confirms whether the email exists. The account owner never finds out anyone asked. Here's what 120+ platforms looks like in practice. Social media: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Pinterest, Tumblr, Reddit. Professional: LinkedIn, GitHub, Freelancer, Fiverr. Dating: Tinder, Bumble, OkCupid, Badoo, Happn. Entertainment: Spotify, Netflix, Twitch, Steam, Epic Games, Deezer. Shopping: Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Zalando, AliExpress. Services: Airbnb, Uber, PayPal, Dropbox, Adobe. And 90+ more. Every registration checked silently. Here's the use case that makes people share this. Run your own email address. See every platform that comes back positive. Then run an email address you gave to a company that claimed they'd never share it. See if it's registered on data broker sites and marketing platforms you never signed up for. See where your email has been sold or leaked to. Here's what investigators actually use it for. Journalists verifying whether a source's claimed identity matches their digital footprint. Security researchers auditing their own exposure before a public disclosure. HR teams verifying whether candidate profiles match claimed backgrounds. And the obvious: anyone who needs to know whether a specific email address belongs to a real active person — without alerting that person. Here's the wildest part. It runs async — all 120+ platforms checked simultaneously. Results in seconds. And it exports clean JSON or CSV for integration into larger OSINT pipelines. Pair it with Blackbird (which takes the confirmed email and finds linked profiles), Sherlock (which takes usernames found in those profiles and searches 400+ platforms), and Maigret (which builds the full dossier) — and you have a complete four-tool OSINT pipeline from a single email address. One command to instal. Run it on your own email first. 16.8K GitHub stars. 1.7K forks. MIT License. 100% Open Source. GitHub link in the comments 👇

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 59 minutes ago

  Email scams but they also use a press cloud server that can hold up to millions of emails and send out messages in a bulk but to hundreds of people complicated when it comes to taking down email scams cuz you have to find where they coming from answer in a cloud compressed server that can hold up to millions of emails frequently combine compressed attachments (like ZIP, RAR, 7Z, or TGZ files) with cloud storage or servers to deliver malware, phishing pages, or credential-stealing links while trying to bypass security filters. Common patterns 🚩Malware in compressed attachments: Attackers send emails with ZIP or similar archives containing executables, scripts (VBS/JS), or disguised files. Some use specially crafted or nested ZIPs, password-protected archives (password given in the email body), or less-common formats that email gateways may not fully unpack or scan. Opening/extracting the archive can install remote-access tools, stealers, or ransomware. Cloud storage phishing (“storage is full” or similar alerts): Emails impersonate Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, Dropbox, or generic “Cloud Storage” services. They claim storage is full, a payment failed, or files will be deleted, creating urgency. Links often point to real cloud infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Storage Azure Blob, or other legitimate buckets) that host redirect pages or fake login/upgrade forms. This makes the links look trustworthy and helps them pass filters🚩.