GitHub 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.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Javarevisited (@javarevisited) reported 1 minute ago

  I've used GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude for coding. Here's the problem none of them actually solve — and it's the one that hurts most in enterprise teams. 🧵

• 
  Richard Barrs (@richard_barrs) reported 7 minutes ago

  Microsoft has fumbled a lot of acquired companies and products over the years, but can any top GitHub? I mean, they practically owned the developer community yet refused to maintain their product. Now everyone is releasing a competitor because it's so bad. Windows phone is possibly a strong contender for their worst failure. They had a head start on the smartphone market and couldn't stop tripping over themselves. I suppose there is still an opportunity for the ultimate self-own if they fail to fix Windows and stop the user bleed.

• 
  Sap ツ (@Sapronaut) reported 8 minutes ago

  i am having github withdrawal issues, man. its not that serious github, chill.

• 
  nasuy (@n_asuy) reported 10 minutes ago

  i think @xai should be ADE. now they have a chat, cursor, enough coding models and harnesses, strong signal like bookmarks or down votes, video creatives, profile / chat / relationship contexts. if so, we don't have to depend on discord or any chat apps. easy to invite x people to cowork. there is no need to connect Linear, Slack, or GitHub to another platform and ask that platform to solve their problems. true AI chat is a SNS, not a single UI. there is a UX that only xAI can realistically build in the world.

• 
  crisiumnih (@PrajwalAvhad8) reported 11 minutes ago

  there is something wrong with libero-pro evals the numbers don't add up, github issues complain the same

• 
  Retail Investors Capital Management (@isdeezthebottom) reported 13 minutes ago

  @zerohedge $ORCL refused to make the effort to comply with $MSFT’s request for a specific standard. Coming from $MSFT this is rich: from Plasma and regression bugs which where supposed to be fixed in 2024, to infecting everyone with Mini Shai Hulud and Hades trough VS Code and GitHub pipelines, to their private GitHub repositories being leaked and BitLocker being extremely easy unlock. Not to mention the need to change MFA mechanism because people would be locked out of their accounts and scammed to change Azure passwords by attackers 🤭and their security policy is: “responsible disclosure” - IE. Don’t say anything about vulnerabilities that might be exploited by attackers, even if there are ways to mitigate until they figure out how to fix them (in a few months or so, if not years). $MSFT can’t talk about “security” until they change their ways of thinking 🤤

• 
  Noisy (@noisyb0y1) reported 14 minutes ago

  OBSIDIAN IS USELESS WITHOUT THIS GITHUB REPO - AND WITH IT YOU CAN RUN 1,000 AI AGENTS WHILE YOU SLEEP without Obsidian Mine it's just a pretty note organizer - with it Claude Code reads the vault in real time, updates notes automatically and pulls data between sessions without losing context one skill connects Claude Code to all your vaults as a bridge - and unlocks everything described in the article below 1,000 agents in 30 days - orchestrator breaks the goal into tasks, delegates to specialists, a judge from a different model family verifies the result - all while you sleep the main rule: the orchestrator never does the work itself - it thinks, splits, delegates and checks verifiable task - the agent hill-climbs it overnight and you wake up to a solved problem clients pay $3,000-5,000 for research reports this system generates in 2 hours prompting was last year's skill - orchestration is the skill now full breakdown on how to connect Obsidian to Claude Code - in the article below

• 
  Plip Funee (@PlipFunee) reported 16 minutes ago

  Uuuugh I really hate the push to add more AI into stuff. It's so exhausting to have this nonsense shoved down our throats. While I'm interested to learn more about UE6, I'll probably wait to see if anyone on github comes out with a version where I don't need to have the AI stuff

• 
  Financial Programmer (@RBiancoUS) reported 16 minutes ago

  A dose of reality for end of week. My biggest question is I can't find any reason for the $Gold panic- did they find gold is causing cancer or radioactive? Selling looks like sheer panic. Would you believe someone asks in DM, so how did *you* get so many followers. Then he lets me brew on it for a day and comes back, I was joking do you have a github, presumably to get some code. No wonder I worked alone. I'm challenged socially guess not alone. After a night of 3 scammers one from Nigeria, one Africa. I need to lock dm down or find a way to restrict

• 
  Ghostroot (@Gh0stroot) reported 16 minutes ago

  GitHub published a tool that forces AI agents to understand before they build. 95K stars in days. The problem with AI coding agents was never the model. It was this: You send an idea in text. The agent interprets whatever it wants. Builds the wrong thing. You start over. spec-kit fixes that with 6 commands. /speckit.constitution → sets the rules: quality, testing, architecture. /speckit.specify → you describe WHAT to build. Not the stack. /speckit.clarify → the agent asks what it doesn't understand before writing a single line of code. /speckit.plan → now you choose the technology. /speckit.tasks → ordered list of tasks by dependencies. /speckit.implement → the agent builds. The deliverable is no longer wildly generated code. It's a living specification that your AI reads, validates, and executes step by step. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Codex, Gemini CLI and 25+ agents. 95K stars. 8.3K forks. Published by GitHub itself. MIT license. Before spec-kit: "make me a task app" and you pray the agent doesn't get lost halfway. After spec-kit: specification first. code after. The agent knows exactly what to build. In what order. And why.

• 
  Pascual ⚡ (@0xPascual) reported 17 minutes ago

  A high school kid opens an account, plugs in Claude 5, and turns a few hundred dollars of lunch money into a six-figure trading account over the weekend. The screenshot goes viral, the replies fill up with people begging for the GitHub repo, and the standard engagement-bait influencers declare the dawn of the sovereign teenage day-trader. The media thought that was the story. It was not. The real flex wasn't the macro strategy or the directional bets on currency pairs. It was the setup behind it: a lightweight proxy array routing through residential IPs to dodge exchange rate-limiting, paired with a custom parsing engine that instantly translates raw order-book imbalances into executed micro-hedges. The kid wasn't trading; he bypassed the entire institutional pipeline of risk management, brokerage compliance, and analyst overhead with a single configuration file. The entire operation runs on a continuous loop of multi-agent orchestration. A master instance drafts the execution logic, a secondary validation agent checks the code against real-time oracle feeds, and a fleet of worker APIs executes up to 3,210 trades a night. Total infrastructure cost: roughly $45 in API tokens and a cheap server instance. It extracts a 78% win rate out of systemic market inefficiencies, operating with a structural margin that legacy trading desks weighed down by salaries and compliance boards cannot compete with.

• 
  Noonien Soong (@mlcarldev) reported 19 minutes ago

  Team @droid It's a bit unfortunate that something, likely in my local Droid installation, has stalled progress. This comes after 20 hours of brilliant, excellent planning and execution on the first 30% of this platform, where a stellar handoff procedure was created so I could start a new mission... which was the recommendation of the orchestrating agent in that first mission. Starting this second mission with a fresh context window, the agent again did a brilliant job planning the next milestones. It was extraordinary, detailed planning... but then it could not execute. After the planning and after me accepting the proposal, it refused to execute, throwing an error every time. The agent tried everything: 1. He decreased the size of the plan down to one line, so it is definitely not the content of the plan causing the issue. 2. He even deleted some mission and plan related json and other files to reset it while preserving all the information. I have restarted Droid and resumed the session, but it just doesn't work. I wrote a detailed, comprehensive bug report and filed it under issues in your GitHub repo, as this seems to be a real problem now. Issues #98 and #99 I hope that a next update will somehow reset my configuration. I didn't see a new version being installed that could have introduced a bug, so this must be something Droid does on such an extensive mission... perhaps when trying to start a new mission in the same repository, which is normal procedure according to the documentation. Something is off, and essentially I have been unable to continue the test since yesterday. I cannot continue having this platform coded here, while Opus Ultracode, on the other hand, has been delivering pretty functional stuff so far. It is a bit chaotic the way it works... it doesn't really stick to the plan... but it always comes back when reminded. I am pretty sure that today I will have a functioning platform delivered by Opus, though it will probably need some debugging and fine-tuning. It is unfortunate because I am confident GLM 5.2 could compete with Opus 4.8. The first stint showed this clearly; that first flawless 98% of the context window in the first mission was absolutely stellar. If I were to reinstall Droid from scratch, I assume I would lose all the artifacts that I have. The orchestrator: Key points to highlight when you pass it to Factory AI: 1. Root cause (smoking gun in the logs): the orchestrator session is bound to missionId 7ba4d425 via session tags, and this binding persists across CLI restarts. ProposeMission looks up that mission directory, finds nothing (because I deleted it trying to fix the issue), and crashes on H.length where H is the undefined result. 2. The bug is likely in session-tag lifecycle: the missionId tag is set at session creation time (before any ProposeMission call), so a failed proposal poisons the session permanently. The tag should be set AFTER a successful proposal, or cleared on restart if the referenced mission no longer exists. 3. The fix is almost certainly to start a completely fresh session (not --resume, and possibly in a new terminal window / after clearing ~/.factory/sessions/). I did not try this because you asked for the bug report first, but it is the most likely workaround on your side. 4. The AskUser tool is also broken in this session with a similar parse error, reinforcing that this is a session-state corruption issue, not a ProposeMission-specific bug. My comment: I meanwhiile tested. All the recommendations and the Ask User tool are now broken, even in completely unrelated new missions and new repositories. Planning also can't go to execution; it's always the same error. Droid seems to be broken for good now, at least on my computer.

• 
  comingnewdays (@WhiteLight3001) reported 19 minutes ago

  @code @github Your old pricing policy was excellent, but this new policy is terrible. I'm sure you've lost many customers because of this ridiculous decision, and that includes me.

• 
  David O. Ehibor 🇦🇷 (@grayontop_) reported 19 minutes ago

  GitHub Copilot didn't make developers faster It made slow developers more confident about writing bad code quickly 😭

• 
  Jay.TL (@JayTL00) reported 19 minutes ago

  Cursor just announced Origin — a *** forge "built for the agentic era." 11.5K likes on the announcement. Nobody is asking the obvious question: is this a GitHub competitor, or the most aggressive vendor lock-in play since Microsoft bundled IE into Windows? The framing is "code storage and *** hosting." That's deliberately boring. Here's what's actually happening. 1. The review bottleneck, not storage, is the real target GitHub hit 275M commits per week by mid-2026. Claude Code alone generated 5.2M commits in February. Storage isn't the problem — scale is. Cursor's bet is that the bottleneck has moved. Junior hiring at big tech is down 22% this year; senior hiring is up 26%. The constraint is no longer generating code. It's reviewing it. Origin isn't competing on hosting features. It's competing on whether the review layer itself should be agent-native — where agents review agents, not humans reviewing agents. 2. The vertical stack is the actual product Think about what Cursor now controls after the SpaceX acquisition: - The editor (Cursor IDE) - The agent models (Composer, Fable integration) - The code storage (Origin) - The review pipeline (auto-review, already default for new users) That's not a tool. That's a platform. The last company to own the editor, the runtime, the storage, and the review surface was Microsoft in the Visual Studio era — and they used that stack to lock in an entire generation of enterprise developers. Origin's landing page says nothing about *** compatibility or migration. It says "join the waitlist." That silence is the strategy. 3. "Agent-native" is doing heavy lifting The phrase "a *** forge for the agentic era" sounds like marketing. It's the entire thesis. Traditional *** forges assume a human writes, a human pushes, a human reviews, a human merges. Origin assumes the opposite: an agent writes, an agent pushes, an agent reviews, an agent merges. The human shows up for the 5% of decisions that need judgment. This is why Origin handles 22+ commits per second and 290K+ clones per hour. Those numbers sound like infrastructure specs. They're actually throughput assumptions — Cursor is designing for a world where commit velocity is 100x human speed and the forge has to absorb it without breaking the review queue. But here's what most people missed: The lock-in isn't technical. It's economic. Once your agents are trained on Cursor's review patterns, your code review history lives in Origin's format, and your team's workflow is tuned to Cursor's auto-review classifier (97% accurate, already default), migrating away means retraining your entire agent fleet on a different review surface. You won't switch because you can't. Not because of lock-in. Because the switching cost is measured in agent retraining cycles, not in developer hours. GitHub's moat was 100M developers who learned its UI. Cursor's moat will be agents that learned its review grammar. The real question isn't whether Origin is better than GitHub. It's whether we're about to let one company own the entire code lifecycle — from generation to storage to review — at the exact moment code is becoming the most valuable asset class in the economy. We've seen this movie before. It didn't end well for developers last time.