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:

• 
  Dave Charland (@Dave_Charland) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Tech2Wild I've been testing things out. Our 2x DGX Spark cluster running DeepSeek V4 Flash locally hit the known CUDA assert in speculative decode at long context. Same vLLM build as the original report, different recipe. We posted a second-rig confirmation to the open GitHub issue and hardened around it: validated config, auto-restart, monitoring.

• 
  Emeline Hex (@MelinShioto) reported 14 minutes ago

  The issues with coding are evident when you compare how easy it was to mod Minecraft with downloading any solution off of GitHub and trying to figure out how it's supposed to be built

• 
  alkimiadev (@alkimiadev) reported 14 minutes ago

  @cr3ghost I obviously had no idea this was happening or at least not at this extreme level when I switched to linux full time years ago, but the same basic underlying rationale is why I stopped using github for private hosting when microsoft bought them and why I won't use vscode. I started looking at google in the same way last year. A little over a year ago I largely de-googled my life. I was doing research into their sketchy moderation system on youtube and it involved actively violating their tos since there is literally no other way to do it. Their tos is worded such that any kind of research like that leaves one risking their google account. That was when I realized how fragile my online life had become due entirely to excessive trust placed in google. I still use gmail because I've had it forever but nothing I care about (knowingly) touches google's servers. I own the domains that use for the emails and while I don't host the email servers (use proton) I could host my own email server if needed.

• 
  Mohammad Anas (@mohmmad__anas) reported 14 minutes ago

  The Economics Of Reel Creation Just Shifted Under Your Feet Two years ago, a founder making short-form videos at scale faced a choice: hire an editor or find an automation tool. The math was obvious. Now the pricing has shifted again. And it changes the game. Last year: One automated reel cost about ten cents. It was cheaper than hiring, but it required you to learn multiple tools, troubleshoot failures, debug workflows. The time tax was significant. This year: Platforms are bundling. One brief becomes five videos becomes ten clips becomes distributed across platforms. The per-unit cost is approaching zero. But the per-unit quality ceiling is rising. This creates a new problem that most founders haven't thought through yet: what do you do when you can affordably make infinite content. Infinite content is a trap if you haven't solved the curation problem. I spent two weeks making thirty videos. Cost me about three dollars in compute and API calls. I published two. The other twenty-eight I deleted. That's not a win. That's waste with free shipping. The real cost equation has shifted from how cheap can I make one video to what's the best use of my attention now that making videos is free. Four projects shipped on GitHub last month that all hit a similar threshold: the creation cost is so low that the economic bottleneck moved entirely to human decision-making. You're not paying for the video. You're paying for the judgment about which video matters. This is actually great news. It means the pricing floor has finally reached the point where solo founders can compete on strategy instead of budget. But it also means you can't just make more content anymore. You have to know why you're making it. Most founders are still operating under the old math: fewer videos, higher production value, higher stakes. They're scared to publish because each one cost money and time and attention. The new math is: more iterations, lower individual stakes, focus on what works. You can now run tests. Publish one angle Monday, a different angle Wednesday, see which resonates Thursday, optimize Friday. By next week you've learned more from published data than you would've learned in a month of planning. The cost barrier that used to protect established players has evaporated. An individual can now run the content velocity of a small team. For free. The question isn't whether you'll use this. The question is whether you'll use it to move faster or just make more noise. The tools are ready. The math works. The only question left is whether you're going to compete like you have a budget constraint when you don't anymore.

• 
  Smukx.E (@5mukx) reported 16 minutes ago

  @github Can you take a look at this? It's been 2 weeks. Either respond or cancel the request and issue a refund for my GitHub Pro subscription. Thanks ! Ticket ID: #4474854

• 
  Synonmous 🌚 (@Gem_Akinbo) reported 18 minutes ago

  The Developer Who Can't Sell Is Still Selling — Just Badly Ask most developers what they think of "sales" and they'll probably cringe. It feels synonymous with spam calls, pushy pitches, and empty promises. Engineers are taught that their currency is truth—code either works or it doesn't—while sales feels like persuasion for persuasion's sake. But here's the uncomfortable truth: Every developer is already in sales. If you've ever explained a technical decision to a non-technical stakeholder, written a README, pitched a side project, negotiated your salary, priced freelance work, or answered "Why should we hire you?", you've sold something. The only question is whether you did it well. Sales isn't manipulating people into saying yes. It's helping someone make a decision that benefits them by clearly communicating value and reducing uncertainty. That's it. The best sales conversations don't feel like sales. A doctor recommending treatment. A senior engineer defending an architecture. A freelancer telling a client not to build an unnecessary feature. All of them are translating expertise into language another person understands. So why do developers resist it? Because we believe good work should sell itself. It doesn't. Most people evaluating your work can't judge your architecture, code quality, or engineering decisions directly. They judge your explanation of them. If people can't understand your value, they can't reward it. This is why great products lose to average ones with better messaging. Why weaker candidates get hired over stronger engineers. Why brilliant open-source projects die with unread READMEs. The market doesn't reward the best solution. It rewards the best understood solution. Think about sales the same way you think about debugging. When debugging, you first understand the system, isolate the problem, identify the root cause, fix it, then verify the result. Selling follows the exact same process. Understand the person's problem. Discover what's actually stopping them from saying yes. Address that concern. Confirm they understand the value. You're not debugging software. You're debugging uncertainty. This changes how you communicate. Stop leading with features. Nobody buys WebRTC, Rust, Kubernetes, or PostgreSQL. People buy faster workflows, happier users, fewer outages, and more revenue. Implementation impresses engineers. Outcomes convince decision-makers. The same goes for objections. "That's expensive." Usually doesn't mean it's expensive. It often means: "I don't yet understand why it's worth that." Treat objections like bug reports, not personal attacks. Most developers also think confidence means being loud or charismatic. It doesn't. Confidence is simply being clear about what you know, honest about what you don't, and calm under pushback. Good engineers already practice this every day. Here's the irony: If you refuse to learn sales, you're still selling. You're just doing it badly. Your interview is sales. Your portfolio is sales. Your GitHub README is sales. Your technical blog is sales. Your startup landing page is sales. Even convincing your team to adopt your architecture is sales. Building something valuable and communicating why it's valuable are two separate skills. Master only the first, and your success depends on someone else explaining your work better than you can. Sales isn't the opposite of engineering integrity. It's the delivery mechanism for it. You can write the cleanest code in the world. But if nobody understands why it matters, it might as well not exist. Learning to communicate value isn't selling out. It's finishing the job.

• 
  Readone (@Foxfire1st) reported 23 minutes ago

  It is going to have issue with complex strings like paths. So it works best for prose. But not nearly as well for code. Plus on their own Github they mention that Opus and Sonnet failed most of the time to work with this OCR method.

• 
  Tomek | Builds & Learns (@tomek_builds) reported 25 minutes ago

  GitHub Copilot can now drive a real browser from VS Code. It can navigate apps, click, type, read page content, capture console errors and take screenshots. That moves coding agents beyond code generation and into end-to-end work. It also makes browser permissions part of the threat model.

• 
  dexar (@dexarxbt) reported 29 minutes ago

  The VRF -- why this draw can't be rigged TIPF uses @magicblock's Verifiable Random Function for every single round Skip the cryptography Here's what matters: A VRF generates a random number and simultaneously generates a mathematical proof that the number came out fairly The proof is public, anyone can check it and nobody (not TIPF, not Magicblock, not you) can know the result before the function runs ORE and ZINC used hash randomness The problem: miners can influence block hashes, control the randomness input and you can skew outcomes Not easily, not always, but the window exists Magicblock's VRF closes that window entirely It's audited by Zenith, open-source on GitHub, follows RFC 9381, and verifies everything directly on Solana -- no external oracle, no extra trust step It runs in a single transaction, older randomness systems needed 50-100 transactions per draw This is faster, cheaper, and nobody's hands are on the wheel

• 
  Skolte (@jskolte) reported 29 minutes ago

  Today I wanted to experiment if @claudeai Fable 5 in Claude Code could manage a fleet of Cursor cloud agents like a dev lead. It shipped a full Cmd+K command palette — and taught me more through its failures than its wins 🧵 The stack, kept simple: Fable 5 in Claude Code is the orchestrator — it specs, reviews, steers, and keeps quality high. The actual building happens in Cursor cloud agents running Composer 2.5. Brains at the top, fast hands in the VMs. Underneath it all sits an SDLC pipeline built on @kieranklaassen his compound engineering: spec → plan → build → review gates, risk lanes deciding how much scrutiny a diff gets, and every solved problem documented so the next run starts smarter. The agents don't work freestyle — they plug into that pipeline. The trigger: a Cursor Automation configured in the Cursor portal — I comment #cursor-build on a GitHub issue → it launches a cloud agent that plans, builds, tests, and opens a PR through those same stages. Fully autonomous, no CI plumbing written — the automation is the trigger. Run 1 came back green. Every gate passing, 460+ tests, clean code. One problem: it built the wrong scope. The agent couldn't read the issue body (missing GitHub scope), never said so loudly, and confidently implemented the narrower task it inferred from one comment. Lesson one: briefs to cloud agents must be fully self-contained — they're blind to everything you can see. So I asked Fable to look at the @cursor_ai cloud agent docs and built itself a "cursor-fleet" skill: a zero-dependency CLI over Cursor's Cloud Agents API plus playbooks for how to manage with it. The full surface: • dispatch — fire an agent from a brief file, model + reasoning effort per call, repo pinned, branch-off-dev and auto-PR baked in • watch — the oversight worker: polls at zero token cost, prints commit digests, and exits with a named reason so Fable only wakes when judgment is needed: FINISHED / ERROR / STALLED (agent heartbeat frozen, not just push-silence) / OFF-TERRITORY / CI-RED • territory enforcement — every brief declares file globs; a commit outside its lane trips the alarm within a minute • CI guard — gh pr checks polled per push, so the repo's own gates become quality sensors • steer — send review findings as a follow-up run to the same agent, VM and context intact. Never cancel-and-restart what you can course-correct • fleet — one line per active agent (status, minutes quiet, PR), exit non-zero if anything needs attention • artifacts + download — agents record demo videos of what they built; pull them via presigned URL as PR evidence • replay — dump a finished run's entire event stream (every tool call, ~30k events) to a file for post-mortems • usage — per-agent token/cost ledger, printed automatically when a run ends Fable dispatched two of its own reviewers (correctness + spec compliance) at run 1's branch, and the findings became a steer. The missing feature was fixed in ~40 min — 97% of the tokens were cache reads. Humbling detail: the territory guard's very first alarm was a false positive — an invisible non-breaking space in the watcher's own generated code. Verify before you steer applies to your tools too. Why this matters: parallel coding agents don't scale on attention, they scale on management by exception. Self-contained briefs, enforced territories, CI as the sensor, steering over restarting, humans at the merge gate. Same rules as leading a team. And the compound part: every lesson from today — blind briefs, the stall heuristic, the invisible-character bug — is now documented in the repo's knowledge store, feeding the next agent's briefs and reviews. Each run makes the following one cheaper. That's the whole thesis. Issue → agent → PR → review → steer → merge → deployed → lessons captured. One day. The cursor-fleet skill needs a bit more real-world testing before I trust it beyond my own repo — a few more fleet runs, a few more failure modes. Once it's hardened I'll share the skill + playbooks. Follow along if you want it when it drops 👇

• 
  Kim S (@kims_code) reported 29 minutes ago

  @ketasciaa if he did that to me he'd just see me reading a 5 year old github issue about broken sourcemaps 🙈

• 
  Sabir Khan (@nsfwsabir) reported 30 minutes ago

  @NoahKingJr Stack overflow, GitHub issues, reddit threads, and random medium articles 😭

• 
  FriesLover (@FriesIlover49) reported 31 minutes ago

  @jxnlco For some reason tagging codex in GitHub for a review always finds issues the review in the app.didnt catch. Ex in the app codex can say it didn't find any issues to report but when using the pr review it can find like 3 P2s, and even do so multiple times.

• 
  synthetic ape (@synthetic_ape) reported 31 minutes ago

  @necrohorrorporn its currently works on my local. there is some issues with buying with rate limiting and steam api declines. if I can able to fix that I can share it on github

• 
  🐶Saul🐶🐢 (@Saulcava1) reported 32 minutes ago

  @GeneralChrisYT @godotengine The i don't get why i can't reproduce it, you should submit an issue anyways on the godot github.