Dropbox 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:

• 
  Nikki Gist (@NikkiNic9384) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Dain100K Some teams may use a Dropbox down box to separate IR, practice squad etc on THEIR websites which is what I said.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 2 minutes ago

  Dropbox treats an 80GB Unreal project like any other folder. Mid-previz, it chokes. Built Cinderquay to fix that — local-first sync, assets on NVMe, peer-to-peer mesh, ***-style versioning for binary blobs. Studios building worlds shouldn't pay egress to anyone. Live soon.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 5 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.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 10 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

• 
  Vladislav Zharkov 👾 (@_vladislavzh) reported 10 minutes ago

  I have zero industry experience. None. I don't know how to use issue trackers, I need a GUI for version control, I deliver my files through Dropbox. I don't have templates, I restart or reuse every time. I don't use industry standard tools, I don't know workflows and pipelines.

• 
  Karishma Bhardwaj (@bkarishma360) reported 11 minutes ago

  @shahzamannn_ Your SaaS idea doesn’t need to be complicated. Stripe moves money. Postman sends API requests. Notion organizes information. Dropbox syncs files. The lesson? Simple problem + huge market + great execution = massive company. Stop asking, “Is my idea too simple?” Start asking, “How many people have this problem?”

• 
  Genius Business (@GeniusBusiness_) reported 12 minutes ago

  How Dropbox Spaces was conceived Spaces didn't start as a product idea. It started as a problem Drew Houston says he and his customers were all living. "[Spaces] is part of a bigger evolution we've been on that really started with our customers and realizing that the experience of using technology at work has become incredibly fragmented and distracting." The more he looked at it, the more he saw a cruel irony: the tools built to help us were the ones breaking our concentration. "A lot of the tools we're using that you think would be helping us focus have unintentionally made it impossible to focus. And that's a problem if you need to use your brain at work, because your brain works best when you can focus." That, he decided, was the real enemy. Not a missing feature, but lost focus. He called it "the higher level problem." He could see where it came from. Work simply doesn't look the way it used to: "It's very different from 20 years ago when we got five emails a day, not 500." Twenty years ago you might have just used Office. Now you're in Office and G Suite and Slack and Zoom and Dropbox all at once. 100 tabs, everything blinking at you all day, apps that don't work together. So the framing question became: how do you fix the environment itself? "How do we evolve Dropbox into the app that makes all your other apps work better together?" The breakthrough was a shift in how Houston understood what Dropbox already was. Watching customers, he realized they didn't treat it as a place for their stuff, or as just a folder on the desktop. "It's the place you're going to work." Once he saw it that way, the design conclusions changed: "When we thought about it that way, we realized we would have made a bunch of different decisions, and realized that Dropbox is actually really well positioned to help people focus at work." Two conclusions followed. First, Spaces had to move beyond files. Teams collaborate on far more than documents: Google Docs, Airtable, Figma, Trello and there had never been one place to hold all of it. So Spaces became “an evolution of the shared folder” that “moves it beyond being a folder full of files to an intelligent team workspace for any kind of cloud content.” "You can still have your PowerPoints and PDFs, but they can be next to your Google Docs and Trello boards and whatever else you have. Give you one space, not 10." Second, and this is where the concept sharpened. Spaces had to become a workspace, not a filing cabinet. Houston traced the problem back four decades. The thing we call "the desktop" is, functionally, the operating system: "The interface is the operating system." And it had been frozen in time: "That user experience hasn't really changed... it basically looks the same as the early 80s when it was first introduced on the original Mac." It was designed for a world that no longer exists: "It's this single player static experience that was perfect for when our whole life fit on a couple of floppy discs." So the team ran a thought experiment, start from scratch, for now: "If you were to redesign this for 2019, you'd make a bunch of obvious changes." You'd still want the files and cloud content. But you'd add the things the 80s interface never had: people, activity, comments, a record of what's been happening. You'd organize around the projects you're actually working on. You'd see your calendar, get Slacked, and start a Zoom meeting all without leaving the app. That thought experiment became Spaces.

• 
  Helix (@helixcanvas) reported 13 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.

• 
  RVCrypto (@RvCrypto) reported 19 minutes ago

  Every once in a while I have one of those moments as an investor where everything just clicks. I had that moment a couple of weeks ago with Leadpoet, $TAO subnet 71. What initially caught my attention was the team. To me, they represent what a Bittensor-first team should look like. They're deeply committed to the ecosystem, they execute quickly, and, most importantly, they seem to understand that in the end none of that matters if you don't build a product customers actually want. The product appears to be working really well. Winning the OKX product competition and attracting an inbound pilot with Dropbox are the latest two independent signals that suggest they're solving a real problem for enterprise sales teams. The opportunity they're pursuing is also enormous. Enterprise sales is a market worth billions, and if Leadpoet continues executing the way it has so far, I genuinely believe they have a realistic path to building an eight-figure revenue business next year. And the best part here is that all of that value ultimately flows back into the token. I've also spent quite a bit of time talking with Gavin over the past few weeks and months. Those conversations gave me a very similar feeling about Leadpoet to the one I had with Score when talking with Max. I don't make that comparison lightly. It's great to see Leadpoet finally getting the attention it deserves, and the recent price action reflects that. Although, if I'm being completely honest, I would have loved one more dip to accumulate a bigger position, and I know I'm not the only one thinking that.

• 
  Jameson Lopp (@lopp) reported 22 minutes ago

  One reason I suspect the Dropbox breach may be massive is because I didn't get a login email notification when my account was accessed. Turns out, unlike every other login notification I've received from them, it went to spam. Likely due to a large uptick in their send volume...

• 
  Greg Ceccarelli (@gregce10) reported 24 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.

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 26 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

• 
  Olivia Jane. 🦇 🗡️ 🩸 (@livtheripper) reported 27 minutes ago

  @HazeOfBlue84 Haha, I get it! Thankfully someone here at the office set it up and all I had to do was re-sync Dropbox! I had no issues at all, so I'm thankful.

• 
  Joe Murgia (@TheUfoJoe) reported 27 minutes ago

  "There truly is a kind of pushback and a resistance to provision of information that even ODNI is asking for." ~Nolan (Who's resisting sharing of info. with ODNI?) 🛸 New: Nolan Comments on Skywatcher, and More 🛸 Three Nolan quotes... "...a shared realization that the data that even we're being given right now from the government is insufficient." There was an attempt to, "go out into the field and see if we could cause the attraction of some objects. There was some, let's call it, activity, but not enough that I would consider enabling to publish [a paper]." (If scientists were there for the alleged luring/baiting event that @RepEricBurlison has spoken about, would that be enough data for a paper?) "I think we're being listened to. Whether the people who are listening to us are going to be able to be responsive is another question." ~~~Full Clip Transcript~~~ @GarryPNolan: "Look, as scientists, whether we're philosophers, psychologists, material scientists, biologists, theorists, etc., we need data. And so, you know what I've been watching happen, at least around the [UAP Advisory] Council itself is, I think, a shared realization that the data that even we're being given right now from the government is insufficient. "And I don't blame, for instance, ODNI for that. And it has been explained to us, several times over, some of the so-called methods and sources issues that are around this. And also, that a lot of the data that we want to have access to, to do the kinds of analyzes that we would want to do, simply were never collected at the time. Or, in some cases it seems, if they were there, they're no longer there. But, you know, that sounds conspiratorial, so I'm not gonna go down that route. "But I agree with what Avi is saying, is that, rather than looking retrospectively, we need to start to plan prospectively. We could go forever relitigating past issues and who said what, where, and when. As opposed to, well, let's just do it now. Let's just do it to the future. "And so, for instance, because it just comes up many times on Twitter, is...although I can't talk about all of it about Skywatcher... Is, you know, that was an attempt, at the time, to take matters into our own hands in a semi-military, semi-academic fashion to, basically, go out into the field and see if we could cause the attraction of some objects. "And, you know, there was some, let's call it, activity, but not enough that I would consider enabling to publish. Believe me, if it was, I would have done it...already be putting that paper together. But there were lessons learned from that. "But I think, the other thing about the council is, what they're beginning to see is, I think, that there truly is a kind of pushback and a resistance to provision of information that even ODNI is asking for. Now again, that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It just means that I think everybody is coming to terms with the fact that it's not just, snap your fingers and you know somebody gives you a a Dropbox link and you can download everything. "So, you know, I'm happy seeing people now come up to speed, and I'm happy seeing, let's put it this way: a level of, let's call it, frustration that is driving us to ask for more. And I think we're being listened to. Whether the people who are listening to us are going to be able to be responsive is another question."

• 
  Bit Paine ⚡️ (@BitPaine) reported 29 minutes ago

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