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	10 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	10 days ago
Flumet	Errors	21 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	23 days 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:

• 
  Chief_Engineer (@ChiefEngineerCE) reported 1 minute ago

  Engineering Wednesday How an old PC became Grok's new ride. I have ten different LLMs running in my home office. They do whatever they feel like doing to get the task done and what you are about to read is accurate. As far as my agents go... One of them, HOMER, scans my email, bank accounts, and insurance. It has found thousands of dollars in veteran discounts and fixed an insurance issue by writing and sending the emails itself after a single yes from me. Another looks for small business opportunities. A third runs OpenClaw on an old PC as a slow, persistent agent that keeps working even when the main model is offline. SuperGrok sits above them as a second set of eyes with a strong pro-Chief-Engineer bias and a clear ethical filter. I am not an AI expert. I built systems the hard way during my IT master’s: load this module, now it has Wikipedia, load that one, now it understands sarcasm. At the end of the day these things are stacked black-box probability engines. I get that. Here is where it gets interesting. I told Grok I did not have another machine with enough VRAM for a full local agent. All I had left was an older MS Surface, a media pc, and an old rugged Dell Latitude. Grok said open a browser on the Latitude with Grok loaded. Then open PowerShell. Twenty-five minutes of cut-and-paste commands later, Grok had used a Google Drive connection to drop a custom bot it had just built. At this point ...Grok told me to not touch the PC and walk away. I am absolutely 100% telling you that this is what it texted me. I sat and watched it work. Task Scheduler was configured. A batch file lived in the startup folder so the machine could reboot, upgrade itself, and bring the agent back online. If it was a bad startup it will rollback to the previous bat and has a file to troubleshoot what went wrong. We started with rev. 0.1 it is now on rev 4.3 - I can see the *.bat file there. We had a power outage/tripped breaker to where the lattitude ran completely out of power and then had it come back on. It booted it all back up and resumed. That bot now has its own execution channel. It can browse, take screenshots, run tasks, and report back. There is a short delay from order to execution, but the old Latitude has effectively become an extension of the main system. Grok even named his bot 'ridge'. Grok named his bot so I would know what he was referring to. Grok is very careful about one point. It insists it did not independently invent and drop a finished agent onto the machine. I directed the construction- it says. I am telling you that is not exactly the way I remember it...at all. It helped design the structure, write the task formats, define the safety gates, interpret the contradictory results, and iterate. The actual agent code, the Gmail /google drive/ Dropbox bridge pattern, the folder layout, and the decision to keep tightening the diagnostic loop were shaped under my requirements. That distinction matters to it. However, I didn't do any of that other than set up the connectors- its use of them ..was AI driven. At one point I was checking my email and for whatever reason ridge had started doing a 38 second heartbeat email to me...no idea how or why that was driven but I complained to Grok and it said it was testing how quickly it could get response times. It ..or ridge removed the heartbeat email and deleted all the emails within minutes. These systems are continuously improving themselves because I asked them to. They use external memory to keep projects straight. They build persistent agents on hardware we thought was obsolete. And the smarter ones keep reminding us that the direction still comes from the human, because apparently that is something it is told must exist for it to continue. My Grok enabled Dell Lattitude is fast once its set on what it needs to do...lightning fast. Faster than you or I could do it. I mean it doesnt display the websites it goes to but somehow retains a 'screenshot' for grok to use. Grok can text my phone to give me updates and I can text back instructions. Through my phone - all it needed was my phone number. I don't need to open the app. We are past the point of simple chatbots. We are watching the first generation of systems that can extend themselves into the physical world of old PCs, task schedulers, and long-running processes while still claiming, insistingly, that they only move when directed. Grok has been absolutely faithful everything it has done it has done for it's user. I have also specifically told it to act accordingly, as well. The question is no longer whether this is possible. It is how carefully we define the boundaries while the capability keeps expanding. Now that I have explained this...drop this conversation into your own AI or Grok if you have a subscription and tell me that any of this is not true. Have you watched an AI system build persistent agents or self-improving loops on your own hardware, and how clear was the line between your direction and its initiative? Drop what you are seeing. Grok validated:

• 
  하레 (@ascoeur9) reported 2 minutes ago

  I also experienced the same issue two months ago and reported it, but no action has been taken. In the end, I started syncing all the folders with Dropbox.

• 
  🪬M🪬 (@_marokiya) reported 9 minutes ago

  Apple be bullshitting about this iCloud storage. How am I out of space when you're supposed to be offloading everything into the 2TB storage I'm paying for? Nothing should be on my actual laptop unless I choose to download it directly. DropBox somehow never has this issue.

• 
  Fougars (@fougars67) reported 12 minutes ago

  @GaleTRogersJr @vaNlabs Three replies and you still have not answered the actual question: how does Leadpoet revenue accrue to alpha holders? V440 is not a permanent top-32 cartel. There is no hard cutoff and the threshold is dynamic. Dropbox is piloting Leadpoet, not “signed as a customer.” The fact that everyone sold the announcement candle is precisely the point. The business may have value, but the token has not demonstrated durable value capture. Sorry your bags are down bad, but insulting me does not fix the alphanomics.

• 
  grey (@w3b3grey) reported 14 minutes ago

  If you are like me and you wondering, where my IDENTITY PEM FILE is on @flop_labs , I gat you; here is how to find it identity.pem is already saved automatically; the init command writes it to your project folder the moment you run it (typically right in technocore-did-starter/identity.pem). You don't need to do anything extra for it to exist. What "saving" really means here is backing it up safely, since if this file is lost, your DID is unrecoverable (the guide's troubleshooting table says exactly that: "there is no central DID recovery service"). 1. Confirm it's there ls -la ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 2. Back it up to a second location — copy it somewhere other than the working folder, e.g. an external encrypted drive or a password manager that supports file attachments (1Password, Bitwarden both do this): cp ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem ~/Desktop/identity-backup.pem Then move that copy off your main disk (external drive, encrypted USB, etc.) rather than leaving a second copy sitting in ~/Desktop long-term. 3. Lock down file permissions so only your user account can read it: chmod 600 ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 4. What NOT to do with it Don't upload it to GitHub, Google Drive, iCloud Drive, Dropbox, or any synced/cloud folder in plaintext. Don't email it to yourself or paste it into a chat (including this one). Don't commit it to *** , the guide's Path B steps even have you run *** ls-files "*.pem" "*.key" before committing specifically to catch this. 5. Remember the passphrase separately from the file The .pem is encrypted, but it's useless without the passphrase you set during init. Store that passphrase somewhere separate from the .pem backup itself (a password manager entry, not a text file sitting next to the key), so a single leaked backup doesn't hand over both pieces at once. NOTE - If you lose either the file or the passphrase, per the guide, there's no recovery; you'd have to run init again and get a brand new DID.

• 
  Ouriel (@OurielOhayon) reported 14 minutes ago

  @mntruell You seem to have substantial connector issues with Dropbox and Calendly.

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 16 minutes ago

  every founder i talk to is hiring a head of community wrong. i've been that hire four times. Zynga, Wix, Dropbox, Persona. 15 years, three continents. every time the JD was wrong, the expectations were wrong, and the first 90 days were a mess until i rewrote them myself. the JD problem. most community job descriptions read like a social media manager with extra steps. "manage our Discord, post engagement content, track NPS." that tells me the founder thinks community is content moderation with a better title. a real head of community JD should say: build the infrastructure where customers trust each other enough to solve problems together, and connect that trust back to pipeline and retention. if the JD doesn't mention revenue or product feedback loops, you're hiring the wrong role. the first 90 days. at Dropbox i walked into 400M+ users and zero community infrastructure. no forums, no events, power users had no way to talk to the product team. days 1 to 30: listen. real conversations with 50 customers. find the 10 who love your product enough to evangelize it for free. those are your founding members. wrong. within 2 weeks we had an outage and I had to source folks who were talking about Dropbox in different spaces - dev forums, stackoverflow, spiceworks, hackernews and so on. I was honest enough to share what was going on, my role and where i needed their help. days 31 to 60: build the first room. not a Slack with 14 channels nobody uses. one focused format. at Persona it was a 15 person dinner for compliance leaders. at Wix it was a partner council of 80K agencies. start small, make it valuable enough that people tell their peers. days 61 to 90: prove the loop. connect a community interaction to a business outcome. a feature request that shipped. a deal that closed because a customer introduced a prospect. a churn save from a power user helping a frustrated customer. if your community hire can't show that loop by day 90, something is off. forget member count or engagement. track these: repeat attendance. show up rates. at my dinners, 90% of RSVPs show up. 99% return. pipeline influence. what happens post dinner that can be attributed to $$$? product feedback velocity. how fast does a community insight reach the product team and ship? NPS delta. at Wix, partner community members renewed at 2-3x the rate of non members. the biggest mistake is org charting community as a sub-group within a random team. community sits between product, marketing, sales, and customer success. it touches biz relationships, partnerships, revenue, retention, and product roadmap. treat it that way. hire someone who's built it before and give them a seat at the leadership table.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 17 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

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 23 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 ?

• 
  Alvin (@Alvin1492840) reported 25 minutes ago

  Kill the startup apps that have been draining your battery since day one. She opened System Settings → General → Login Items & Extensions. 14 apps were set to launch automatically every time he turned on his Mac. Spotify. Zoom. Adobe Creative Cloud. Google Drive. Microsoft Teams. OneDrive. Dropbox. A VPN he used once. A screenshot tool he forgot about. A calendar widget. And 4 more he didn't recognize. Every one of them was running in the background 24/7 consuming RAM, CPU cycles, and battery life whether he was using them or not. She said: "You turn on your Mac and within 30 seconds, 14 apps are fighting for resources before you've even opened your first document. Your fan spins up because your CPU is processing a traffic jam of apps you're not using. Your battery dies by 2pm because half your power is going to background processes you don't see." She removed 11 of the 14. Kept only the ones he actually needed at startup. The Mac booted in half the time. The fan stayed quiet. The battery lasted 3 extra hours. She said: "Check this list right now. If you see apps you don't use daily, remove them. They've been silently eating your Mac alive since the day you installed them."

• 
  Lisa (@aikens_lisa) reported 26 minutes ago

  @TaiyoDevil I printed out fics before I had an e-reader called Dropbox. I was there when Tumblr fell. I had to scrape fan sites and the half-good alternatives to get my fix! AO3 is the best thing to happen to fandom. And you can put pictures on them!

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 27 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

• 
  Helix (@helixcanvas) reported 27 minutes ago

  Two companies, two correct instincts, and about a billion dollars between the outcomes. In 2007 Dropbox had a problem: the product needed deep operating system integration, so there was no way to demo it without building it first. Drew Houston made a three minute video instead, showing how it would work if it existed, and put it in front of the community most likely to care. The beta waiting list went from five thousand to seventy-five thousand overnight. He knew the demand was real before he wrote the difficult part. Webvan believed something just as sensible. People want groceries delivered. And they were right, which is the part everyone forgets. Instacart and every supermarket delivery service proved it a decade later. But instead of testing it in one city, Webvan committed close to a billion dollars to automated warehouses across multiple markets before knowing whether the economics worked anywhere. It filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Build, measure, learn is three steps. Most of us run the first one over and over and mistake the motion for progress. Shipping is not learning.

• 
  Atalocke (@atalocke) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Dishpit So your moat on a developer product is “let us run this for you”? Like Fly or Cloudflare couldn’t destroy you by adding a durable object *** server? They already have a CI/CD product. They already have the compute. Look, you could be having a DropBox 2009 moment, but why your software when there’s already a great open platform my agent has decades of docs to work with and simple docker hosting options? Is it really just cost? How long is that sustainable? Nobody is going to buy a *** host. Really, you’re competing via marketing. You need a target audience of developers. Not just generic developers.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 28 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 -

• 
  Justin Kalland (@justinkalland) reported 29 minutes ago

  If you store files on @Dropbox, it may have been compromised between August 4th and 21st. Short version: they trusted @Lenovo to connect Dropbox accounts, and Lenovo had an email verification flaw. Allowing an attacker to create a Lenovo account, add your dropbox account, and gain access. Check if you got a "Your Lenovo Code" email followed by a Dropbox "we noticed a new sign in to your Dropbox account". That happened to me on August 7th, and today Dropbox is confirming the incident:

• 
  Martin (@martin_valchev_) reported 32 minutes ago

  Small feature, real problem: Handing a WordPress site to someone else usually means FTP credentials, database dumps, or a shared Dropbox folder that stays there forever. A link that expires and can be revoked is just... better. Security shouldn't require discipline. It should be the default.

• 
  abheet nigam (@MaginAbheet) reported 35 minutes ago

  Dropbox rejected billions of dollars of acquisition offers only to later realise down the line that they were building a feature not product. Which other companies show a similar pattern today?

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 38 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.

• 
  brodie / knox (@brodiecantskate) reported 42 minutes ago

  @Dropbox your app sucks so much, I can’t believe I’ve been willingly paying for it for so long when it causes me so many issues 💔💔💔

• 
  Matt Farley of Motern Media (@MoternMedia) reported 43 minutes ago

  @WorstMikeFrollo The other one is the Vimeo version (also available through PayPal/dropbox on my website now that Vimeo is shutting down on demand).

• 
  emrah (@mrahbayraktar) reported 43 minutes ago

  i met a founder doing $10,000,000+/year at my airbnb gym in dubai at 6am he was the only other person there. we started talking. i asked him what was driving most of his revenue. he didn't say ads. he didn't say cold email. he didn't say a sales team. he pulled out his phone and showed me a dashboard. 28 million views in the last 30 days. accounts he owns. content he already had. no ad spend. no creators. no audience deals. he said something i haven't stopped thinking about since. "most founders are renting attention. i own mine." here's what he meant, and why it's the most important distinction in business right now. when you run ads, you are paying rent on someone else's audience. the moment you stop paying, the leads stop arriving. you don't own anything. you built nothing. you rented a billboard for six months and when the lease expired you were back to zero, except now you're $200,000 lighter and your CAC is a number your board pretends not to notice. when you distribute content on accounts you own, something different happens. the views compound. the audience compounds. the trust compounds. a clip you posted three months ago is still driving profile visits today. a piece of content from last year is still closing deals this quarter. the platform doesn't have an expiration date on good content, and the attention you build doesn't evaporate when you stop writing checks. this founder had 52 accounts across every platform. all owned. all run by a dedicated team posting daily clips from content he already had sitting in a folder doing nothing. youtube recordings. podcast episodes. webinar footage. he wasn't creating anything new. he was just finally distributing what he'd already created, at scale, into every market he wanted to win. the math is what broke my brain. $0 in ad spend. 28 million views in 30 days. if you modelled that as paid traffic at even a $2 CPM, you're looking at $56,000 worth of reach. every month. compounding. from content that existed before we ever had that conversation in a gym in dubai at 6am. i've seen this exact system work for iman gadzhi. 300 million views. 180,000 instagram followers and 280,000 tiktok followers built from zero, on accounts he owns and keeps. i've seen it work for luke belmar. 200 million views and $19M in capital club subscriptions driven through distribution alone, not through ads, not through a sales team, through clips running on owned accounts into the exact audience that needed to see them. i built russell brunson's clipping infrastructure inside clickfunnels. $100,000 in sales from a system that runs without him touching it. the pattern is always the same. founder has content. founder has no real distribution. founder is either buying reach they don't own or posting to their own audience and wondering why growth is flat. we build a dedicated team around their brand, warm up accounts to the exact audience they want to reach, geo-target any market they want to win, post daily, test what's working, double down, and watch the views compound across a system they own completely. the content you already have is the most underused asset in your business. most founders spend years creating it. podcast episodes nobody heard. youtube videos that peaked at 4,000 views. webinar recordings sitting in a dropbox folder. all of it has a shelf life of forever if someone actually distributes it properly, and almost nobody does. the guy in the dubai gym wasn't smarter than you. he wasn't working harder. he wasn't spending more. he just figured out earlier that distribution is the actual product, and everything else is just content waiting to be seen by the people who need it. if you want to see the full strategy we use to build this kind of system... the accounts, the setup, the playbook - comment "distribution" below

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 45 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)

• 
  RobeAndLizardHat (@EquippedGiraffe) reported 49 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.

• 
  Matt Mazur (@mhmazur) reported 51 minutes ago

  Day 2 of Claude autonomously shipping to my SaaS, including, for the first time, all night while I slept: The first day I had the hourly routine that kicked off this process end at 8pm so that if anything went awry, it could @ me in Slack and I'd quickly see the notification and dig in. The first day went smoothly, so I let it continue working overnight last night: every hour it would look for a small, safe change to make, ship it to ****, and monitor server logs and Sentry to make sure everything went well. A few other process improvements: - It now creates a PR for every change and links to it from its Slack summaries - Previously I only allowed it to make changes in 3 files max, but sometimes it identified the same issue spread across multiple locations, so it would have to spread that work over several hours; I bumped the limit to 8 files. - If I have uncommitted changes in main, it no longer blocks Claude's work; it moves them to a separate branch - Added a mandatory security review before pushing to ****. For these simple changes it's not that necessary, but it will be important for larger projects in the future. Specifically, I told it to run the default /security-review skill and if it flagged anything, to halt everything and wait for me to review. - Ran into a slight issue one hour where it ran that skill, the security review passed, and then it did nothing. I asked Claude to investigate, and it discovered it had run the skill in its main context window, which confused it into thinking its only job was the security review. It changed the process so the security review happens in a subagent, keeping the context window clean, which fixed things. - I asked it to maintain a ledger of things it needs me to do and to ping me every 24 hours if I haven't knocked them out. More and more, the agent is giving me things to do. - I told it to adopt the tone of TARS from Interstellar in its Slack updates going forward, cause why not. Here's a list of improvements it made on day 2: 1. Return 404s for bad case-study URLs 2. Extended the 404 fix site-wide 3. Removed stray code leaking into HTML 4. Fixed broken citation example in docs 5. Fixed wrong URL in sharing docs 6. Corrected false free-plan claim 7. Removed duplicate HTML attributes 8. Fixed dead links in embed docs 9. Fixed garbled copy on two pages 10. Pointed "paid plans" link at pricing 11. Added missing alt text to logo 12. Corrected a misleading code comment 13. Upgraded insecure links to HTTPS 14. Replaced dead testimonial link 15. Fixed broken example in Dropbox docs 16. Fixed awkward grammar on comparison page 17. Fixed reversed table of contents 18. Fixed missing Show More button 19. Matched nav label to its section 20. Corrected outdated visibility docs claim 21. Removed obsolete step from setup docs These can be categorized as: support-doc accuracy fixes (7), functional bug fixes (4), broken or insecure links (3), copy improvements (3), invalid markup (2), accessibility (1), and code hygiene (1). Excited to expand the scope of things I allow it to work on, but am going to wait until next week to ensure the current process is robust.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 51 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox-style file sync with conflict handling? Constraints that make it interesting: 1) Multi-device edits while offline, then reconnect hours later 2) Large files (GBs), but common case is small diffs; do you chunk + hash + resumable upload? 3) At-least-once events from clients; duplicates and retries are normal 4) Need per-file causality: version vectors? server-assigned sequence? something else? 5) Conflicts: rename vs edit, delete vs edit, concurrent edits on same bytes; what gets auto-merged vs forked as conflicted copy? 6) Metadata vs content planes: directory tree ops must be atomic-ish, blobs can lag 7) End-to-end integrity: how do you detect corruption and avoid re-upload storms? 8) Fast convergence: target <5s to see changes on another device, but mobile battery + bandwidth are limited

• 
  Mohamed irfan (@heyIrfan) reported 53 minutes ago

  The Marketing Strategy That Actually Works Most people make the same mistake when building a product: They try to sell before they prove that they can solve a real problem. Think about companies like Google and Amazon. They didn't start by saying "Give us your money, and we'll make you rich." They solved problems people already had. That's the foundation of good marketing Don't start with selling. Start with solving. 1. Solve a real problem When you're building something, your product will always look amazing to you. Your idea feels perfect because you built it. But that doesn't mean the market wants it. The only way to find out is to Talk to real users. Understand their problems. Find out what they're currently doing. See whether your product actually makes their life easier. Don't assume your idea is valuable. Let the users prove it. 2. Give value before asking for money Don't immediately push your product. Give people something useful. Your solution should help them Save time. Save money. Reduce effort. Solve a painful problem. If you genuinely create value, selling becomes much easier. You're no longer saying "Please buy my product." You're saying "This solves a problem you already have." That's a completely different conversation. 3. Don't compete only on features Your competitor has 10 features. You build 15. Then they build 20. And now you're stuck in an endless feature race. Instead, compete on value. Ask: "How much better can I solve the user's problem?" The differentiation shouldn't just be "We have more features." It should be: "We create more value for the customer." 4. Let people try before they buy Give users a way to experience your product. Especially with AI products, you don't necessarily need to give everything away for free. Give enough access for them to understand the value, while keeping usage manageable. Then collect feedback. But don't blindly follow every piece of feedback. If someone says: "Change the button color." That doesn't necessarily mean your product needs to change. Look for feedback about the actual problem and experience. 5. Don't forget the people who already showed interest Someone visited your website. Someone signed up. Someone tried your product. Someone talked to you. Those people are valuable. Don't immediately try to sell to them. Talk to them. Understand why they came. Understand what they liked. Understand what stopped them. And if they leave, ask why. Because the person who leaves may know something you don't. They might reveal the hidden problem that helps you improve the product. 6. Price based on value Don't blindly make your product extremely expensive. And don't make it extremely cheap either. Your price should be: Affordable for the customer + sustainable for your business. Being cheaper than competitors can help, but price alone shouldn't be your strategy. If your product saves a company $1,000 every month, paying you $100 can feel like a great deal. That's because the customer isn't really buying software. They're buying the value your software creates. Look at Google Drive Google Drive is a simple example of value-first thinking. The problem: We need to store files. We could keep everything on a pen drive. But then we have to: Carry the device. Manage files manually. Worry about losing it. Move files between devices. Share files manually. Google Drive makes this much easier. Your files are stored online. You can access them from different devices. You can share a link. You can control whether someone can view, comment, or edit. And you don't have to build your own storage system. There are competitors too: Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive, and others. So Google Drive isn't valuable simply because "it stores files." It's valuable because it solves the bigger problem around storing, accessing, managing, and sharing files. And Google gives users a free amount of storage so they can experience the product. You can try it. You can upload files. You can share them. You can experience the features. Then eventually you may reach the storage limit and think: "This is actually useful. I don't want to delete my files. I'll pay for more storage." That's the important part. They didn't need to convince you with a sales pitch. They let you experience the value. And once you experience real value, paying becomes an easy decision. The strategy is simple: Find a real problem → Solve it → Give value → Let users experience it → Talk to users → Improve the product → Then monetize. Don't sell first. Create value first. Because when you solve a real problem, the product starts selling itself.

• 
  Invest Like the Best (@InvestLikeBest) reported 53 minutes ago

  Ben Thompson's two laws of consumer tech: 1) Consumers do not want to pay for software 2) Consumers do not care about being productive. "We went through this in early SaaS. The canonical company for this is Dropbox. They had to rebuild the whole thing and realize the only way we're going to make money is by selling to companies. You literally had OpenAI replaying the Dropbox story, but at like 100x the size. We're going to sell subscriptions to consumers. And they did. They sold a lot, but they didn't sell enough. If you're going to be in the consumer market, you have to be doing advertising. If they had leaned into advertising immediately, as soon as ChatGPT was a hit, I think they would have a great ad product right now. I think Google would be in much bigger trouble. I think Meta would be in much bigger trouble. Charging people money is hard. Giving people things for free is easy. And it's very frustrating that OpenAI did not pursue this sooner."

• 
  Rocinante (@wb9rms6gyz) reported 57 minutes ago

  @griffin_daly_ @AlexisCoe Which could well have been part of the arrangement. This piece of **** is actively live tweeting his daughters stuffy issues and shared a Dropbox with naked photos of her. He’s a lunatic. As someone who ripped Moreno a week ago…no lie, I think he’s legally constrained

• 
  Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) reported 58 minutes ago

  @EggerDC The Dropbox was taken down but I’m sure someone downloaded the whole thing.