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:

• 
  Mayank (@Mayank_Msd) reported 10 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux Giving you most genuine issues from user pov 1.Lower token usage for repetitive coding tasks 2.Daily/weekly usage meter with accurate remaining quota 3.Native GitHub PR review and fix suggestions

• 
  Tiresias (@iamTiresias) reported 11 minutes ago

  @DivyanshT91162 OpenCode being model-agnostic instead of tied to one provider is the meaningful part. Most coding assistants lock you into whatever model the vendor prefers, which becomes a problem when a specific model handles your language or codebase better than the default. The "/opencode" GitHub integration for opening PRs from comments is a real workflow shift. Automating the trigger from issue to draft PR removes the friction that usually kills these integrations - most teams have every intention of using AI in their code review pipeline but never actually set up the automation. The rest is standard cross-platform, terminal-first packaging. Solid tool for developers already committed to AI-assisted coding workflows.

• 
  Mevari Navalo (@MevariNavalo) reported 12 minutes ago

  @CryptoCyberia Everyone is missing that the url says that this issue is on the github page for the twitter algorithm. That's not something that is packaged as a .exe that you just run on your desktop. The person asking for the .exe is an idiot here.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 12 minutes ago

  Your build went red. We caught it before you did. A GitHub App that watches your CI, matches failures against 94 verified patterns, and opens a fix PR — no LLM, no hallucination, no repo cloning. Doesn't work? The PR closes itself. Free tier live.

• 
  The Trench (@TrenchCoatArt) reported 14 minutes ago

  @_jvn_e @DiscountDed_Fox @catgirlprostate In my experience the problem comes from it being different every time sometimes a project has no releases on GitHub and the link is outdated so it sends you to a 404 sometimes it redirects you to a different hosting site sometimes its under releases, thats whats frustrating to me

• 
  Cool Guy™ 🌈✞🌛 (@ChurchOfMoons) reported 18 minutes ago

  I used GitHub during my game design studies, never had too much trouble downloading new repos but it's EXTREMELY non-coder user unfriendly, and I don't know why people keep using it for the stuff they do. The version control is nice but devs keep thinking it's an app store

• 
  Shai (Deshe) Wyborski (@DesheShai) reported 22 minutes ago

  Thanks for the new "paper" David, I could do with a good laugh. But I was talking about math, not about writing a bunch of mathy-looking stuff and posting it on your GitHub for your little fans to gush over. Full disclosure: I didn't read the whole thing. I didn't have to. I only got up to page 2 before running into a blatantly fatal error, and in page 4 I found another one, so I didn't see a reason to push forward. Maybe that's why you had to present it in workshop instead of trying to get it published. Anyway, let's get to it. In page 2, you said “Compensating for this decline […] requires the attacker to add a supplementary transaction containing real fees.” That's false. It does not follow from requirements 1-5. This assumptions hide the fact that your "analysis" implicitly assumes that attackers always try to preserve the same-production work. That is, your "proof" only prohibits one attack vector, and disregards most realistic scenarios such as: - Routers that insert Sybils without producing the block - Attackers whose block already contains enough work Explicit example: without Sybiling at n=H=2, the atataacker routing share is u(2,2) = 1/3. After adding one identity, we have u(2,3) + u(3,3) = 2/7 + 1/7 > 1/3 so the attacker controls hops 2-3. That is, whenever this transcation is included (which has unchanged positive probability. E.g. if the eventual block producer already satisfies the work threshold from other transactions, inserting this additional hop need not change the transaction’s probability of inclusion), Sybilling strictly increases routing payout for free. That's not the only gap I found. You derived propagation asa preferable only when x > y/7, but then kinda just assumed this means y>7x is "impossible". More egregiously, you apply the inclusion-exclusion principle while switching between the distributions x and y. These distributions might have the same sample space, but a different probability measure induced by different strategy. Hence, using inclusion-exclusion to establish a relationship between them is a rookie mistake which completely invalidates your proof strategy. This invalidates your entire proof strategy. Applying the exclusion-inclusion principle while using a different probability function for each event is a rookie mistake. Your paper might prove that "compensated Sybil" is a bad strategy (which is not exactly a surprise. Why would anyone want to do that?). But it's a far cry from "disproving Babaioff" and is exactly what happens when cryptobros think they are mathematicians. They do a lousy job all around, and post it to their GitHubs so that their little following of people who think they are going to make them rich will laud how smart they sound to the uninitiated. Either way, having found an actual deep flaw in your "work" (thanks for bringing it up!), I'll mail my concerns to IWGTEA, which might save them some embarrassment. But again, thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

• 
  Rodolphe Jacson (@RodJacson) reported 23 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux You could fix the GitHub / Sandbox Auth issue! This is small I guess and rather annoying.

• 
  katoshi (@bitcoinkatia) reported 24 minutes ago

  @miketwenty1 Many put an enormous amount of trust in CC. In CC’s GitHub repo, the vast majority of commits is authored by one person. The external review that happened was apparently not enough. CC knew about the vulnerability and decided not to fix. Reasons to trust this company again?

• 
  Laughless (@LaughlessVR) reported 27 minutes ago

  @CryptoCyberia This issue isn't really with github, it is with developers using github as a distribution method for end users who are unfamiliar with the UI, who would have no reason to learn to navigate said UI if the developers used a proper dedicated distribution method.

• 
  Justin Vu Nguyen (@jv_nguyen518) reported 29 minutes ago

  @cassidoo honestly, maybe better performance with Github Desktop? Sometimes the pushes get crazy slow

• 
  Joey Smith (@JoeySmi48633946) reported 32 minutes ago

  @cassidoo @davidfowl How about proper server side HTML GitHub broke for my old iPad

• 
  Arun (@arun_sankr) reported 32 minutes ago

  @cassidoo Mcp server for github wiki

• 
  CodeMonument (@CodeMonument) reported 32 minutes ago

  @mikker - i let it do Research on repos and Write and Comment on github issues on my behalf (with disclosure that this is a bot writing but on my behalf)

• 
  Tanner Polley (@tnnrpolley21) reported 34 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux Please add a GitHub issues tab on the toggles summary UI so we can see the current issues for a repo! Similar to pull requests idea. Also please fix the stale status of a branch not actually moving to main when it has been deleted.