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:

• 
  FP4 Brain (@thefp4brain) reported 2 minutes ago

  Elaborating a bit on the hiring side: the whole interviewing process is taking so, so much more energy. I've interviewed two people recently, and both times I came out completely exhausted One turned the problem statement into an entire SaaS. Really cool, yes, they can get stuff done. But during the interview they couldn't explain how most of it worked or walk me through the actual decisions The other had this super amazing portfolio website. Then I looked at their GitHub and found that building the portfolio itself accounted for roughly 70% of their commits this year No, I don't believe GitHub activity should be treated as a hard measure (private repos, or simply non GitHub activity). But directionally, along with the fact their portfolio and projects were hosted there, it usually tells you something Even if you know exactly what you're looking for, every impressive signal becomes another thing you have to verify. A recommendation doesn't guarantee that someone is good, but it gives you context from a person who has actually seen them work Without that, you have to build all of that context from scratch, every single time Hey, maybe I suck at going through candidates but I'm sure other interviewers are also experiencing this

• 
  Ruthrasankar (@SRuthrasan71495) reported 4 minutes ago

  Lost 45 mins to Github and Supabase issues 😭😭 Unfortunately I connected the wrong github account to Supabase and when I tried to change, Github asked me to verify my account. And resert my password and email. Then it took some time for the previous repositories to appear. I was afraid to create a new repo when I can't even see my old ones - Result, I lost 45 mins in this process 🤯 I don't think I can pull it within the next 50 mins. What should I do?

• 
  PiX (@pa1nark) reported 6 minutes ago

  @github support page is beyond broken. you can't just request for deletion of data now? are you kidding me!?

• 
  Alok Mani Tripathi (@manialok) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Prathkum We still do PRs manually while GitHub commits by agents are controlled. We do milestone issues and then code each of them in iterations so agent drift, failure and code bloat are controlled.

• 
  Syed Daim Kazmi (@D_kazmi) reported 20 minutes ago

  • Added GitHub rate-limit protection that blocks calls when the remaining quota drops below a safe threshold • Added safeguards around write operations such as issue creation and limited repeated tool usage during an agent query

• 
  Jack — building in public (@itsjackdev) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Taniyatweets_ the scary answer isn't on the list: the supply chain. npm, actions, provenance — a huge share of the world's software installs and builds through github. lose that and half of everything just can't ship that morning. "personal projects" is the rounding error.

• 
  Vet (@Vet_X0) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Kirjakulov @daniel_wwf Let's not apply sarcasm on one of the few persons who in recent times put out a proper solution for this on github. We can all drive a change we want to see it's an open source project, especially by (FH) node operators if this is a cost burden. Definitely in favor or a solution personally, looks like this discussion goes back to 2019 with Nik B. The only thing i'd add here is that existing services would become tiny more expensive. The memo field is heavily used by Flare and Axelar for interoperability, and potentially other integrations in the future. At the same time, it's also good to know none of this would solve the issue of FH nodes needing to store this stuff and they will not get paid to do that. That's a general blockchain problem. Solana FH is hundreds of TBs for example.

• 
  Rewards Bunny (@rewardsbunny) reported 24 minutes ago

  @lista_dao GitHub org issues are boring right up until users ask if funds are safe, so leading with “no impact” is the right move.

• 
  thebaldgeek (@thebaldgeek) reported 24 minutes ago

  @pejacoby @jeremyyablan @wiglenet Its closed source, so GitHub to open issues etc. The discord is a mess. They don't like questions or feedback. I'd like to know how the app work as well, it's doing odd things vs the many other I've tested.

• 
  Matthew Chenoweth Wright, CEO of Monolithic LLC (@enuminous) reported 26 minutes ago

  @boardyai Monolithic Is Building a Codebase Around an Unusual Question: Can Coherence Be Tested? Most new scientific software projects begin with a program designed to solve a particular problem. Monolithic's emerging code set is stranger than that. It is an attempt to turn a sprawling theoretical framework called EFMW—Einstein–Feynman–Maxwell–Wright—into a collection of equations, formal objects, diagnostic instruments and falsifiable experiments. The public work is still early and should not be confused with independent scientific validation. But it has crossed an important threshold: EFMW is increasingly represented not merely by essays and equations, but by software that other people can inspect, execute, criticize and potentially break. Monolithic's public GitHub presence includes the main EFMW repository and an experimental EFMW-FULL framework. (GitHub) One major component is what Monolithic calls the Zoo: a family of 46 named analytical tests. Instead of treating "coherence" as one score, the Zoo decomposes analysis into specialized behaviors. Individual animals examine different properties—persistence, causal structure, generalization, recursive behavior, contradictions, transitions, attractors and other characteristics of complex systems. The whimsical vocabulary disguises a serious engineering idea: build many narrow diagnostic instruments rather than one supposedly omniscient evaluator. Alongside the Zoo sits the Monolithic 102, a corpus of 102 EFMW equations now being translated into Lean 4, the formal theorem-proving language. This is potentially the more consequential development. A mathematical expression written in a paper can contain hidden assumptions or undefined transformations. Formalization forces definitions, types, dependencies and proof obligations into the open. Lean compilation therefore establishes something much narrower—but much more defensible—than proving that EFMW describes nature: it can establish that particular formal statements follow from explicitly declared premises. That distinction matters. Lean verification is not experimental confirmation of a physical theory. A perfectly verified theorem can still begin from assumptions that nature does not obey. Formal methods instead provide an unusually unforgiving test of mathematical bookkeeping. Contemporary Lean projects use exactly this distinction, separating machine-checked soundness from broader claims about the systems being modeled. (GitHub) Monolithic has also begun putting portions of EFMW through empirical tests. Its first control-degradation experiments asked whether an EFMW-derived recursive monitor could detect impending deterioration earlier than conventional monitoring methods under matched conditions. Initial experiments produced encouraging results, followed by harder scrutiny of baselines, false-alarm rates, implementation choices and possible artifacts. Some comparisons substantially weakened the apparent advantage. Rather than being an embarrassment, that is precisely what a scientific testing program is supposed to uncover. The next stage is consequently more interesting than another favorable benchmark. The emerging hypothesis is that EFMW may have a particular habitat: systems possessing temporal depth, feedback, partial observability, distributed state and accumulating contradiction. If so, the important prediction is not that EFMW should win everywhere. It should outperform simpler methods increasingly as those structural characteristics appear—and lose its advantage where they do not. This gives the Monolithic code set an unusual architecture. The equations provide the proposed theory. Lean attacks its formal consistency. The Zoo attacks systems from multiple diagnostic directions. Simulations expose claims to controlled failure. Ablations ask which components actually produce an observed effect. Conventional algorithms provide adversarial baselines. The result is less a single program than an expanding scientific test bench. That may ultimately be the most important thing Monolithic has produced so far. EFMW's largest claims remain unproven, and independent replication will determine whether any of its proposed mechanisms survive outside their originating environment. But converting an ambitious theoretical system into inspectable code, formal statements and tests changes the nature of the argument. A theory written only in prose can be debated indefinitely. A theory turned into code can be run. A theory translated into Lean can be checked. And a theory surrounded by tests can, finally, be allowed to fail.

• 
  jared.info (@JaredRonis) reported 27 minutes ago

  Hugging Face has been fielding M&A interest for $13B+ This is an important thing to track. We need a good steward for what is currently a very important part of open source/open weight AI. $13B narrows down the options if who can acquire. I honestly wouldn’t be mad about Microsoft since they’re surprisingly been fairly good stewards of GitHub so fair assumption they could do the same thing with Hugging Face but I honestly haven’t given it a ton of thought. Would love to hear peoples opinions and predictions here. H/T @GetAISecret

• 
  Irfan (@irfanbh22) reported 29 minutes ago

  @stephenrobles @claudeai @ChatGPT Yikes. Github pushing to apple connect and not realizing it. This sounds like a nightmare made worse by how terrible Claude talks these days.

• 
  Sinecan (@sinecanswork) reported 31 minutes ago

  Totally forgotten that I had a GitHub Copilot subscription. Got this email today saying that my annual subscription ended. It was great in the beginning and gave lots of value. After the price increase of AI models, my monthly quota started finishing within the first 3 days of the month. - It was extremely frustrating. - The value was not there anymore. Stopped using it, and even forgot that I had a subscription. I can imagine that I am not alone. Feel sorry about the team who have really worked hard to make GitHub Copilot great, as far as it goes. While their pricing looks attractive, wrt how quickly one consumes his/her monthly quota, it makes more sense to use - for instance - DeepSeek or GLM-5.2 kind of models with other harnesses. If money is not a problem, Claude is the one to use. Haven't used Codex for some time but it is likely the one that gives a lot more value now for the same price compared to Claude.

• 
  Gabriel Rubens (@gabrielrubenss) reported 32 minutes ago

  VPS deploy via GitHub (2/8): the strange part is that the very same deploy works every time from my own laptop. Same Kamal 2 command, same server, same key, no waiting. It only fails from GitHub Actions, which already says the problem is not my server and not my config.

• 
  Ryan OPTC トレクル (@Radicalbyte343) reported 33 minutes ago

  @halvarflake Nah for some things it's just a case of getting more data. That's why Cursor are so smart - make a github clone & they have all these provide production systems they can train on. Then, assuming a similar problem, a massive model can just pull an existing solution out of mem.