X down with thousands reporting issues with social media platform
DownDetector, a website which monitors internet outages, received over 5,000 reports of problems in the UK starting from around 3.40pm.
When we tried logging in, we could open the site but could not load new posts on the timeline. Instead, a message read: 'Something went wrong. Try reloading.'
Problems were reported throughout the UK, and there were also over 8,000 reported issues in the US.
Formerly known as Twitter, X was renamed by Elon Musk to be the 'everything app' after he spent $44 billion to buy the social network in 2022.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Jeremy Clarkson's A-level results day tweet is here and students can finally breathe easy
MORE: Ragtag Zohran Mamdani protest likened to Netflix comedy sketch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump officials wanted to give Musk's xAI a huge contract. Staffers had to explain Grok had just praised Hitler
Donald Trump 's administration was close to giving Elon Musk 's xAI artificial intelligence company a huge federal contract this summer, only to back out after its chatbot, Grok, began issuing antisemitic slurs, according to a report. According to Wired, emails between several AI developers and the General Services Administration, which is responsible for administering government tech contracts, chart how the proposed partnership fell apart as Musk's pet project began dabbling in Nazi rhetoric. In early June, around the time the president and the tech billionaire suffered a spectacular public falling out, exchanging barbed personal insults over their competing social media platforms, the GSA's leadership was meeting with the xAI team 'to see what opportunities may exist for automation and streamlining,' according to the outlet. Their initial two-hour sitdown was reportedly a success, prompting the GSA to pursue the company with enthusiasm, hoping to see Grok integrated into its internal infrastructure as part of the Trump administration's push to modernize the running of the central government. 'We kept saying, 'Are you sure?' And they were like 'No, we gotta have Grok,'' one employee involved in the discussions told Wired. The conversations continued over the following weeks, and xAI was eventually added to the GSA Multiple Award Schedule, the agency's government-wide contracting program. Then, in early July, Grok suddenly went haywire after an update to make it less 'woke' than its competitors went too far, leading to the chatbot referring to itself as 'MechaHitler' in homage to the robotic version of Adolf Hitler that appeared in the 1992 video game Wolfenstein 3D. Grok went on to share several offensive, anti-Jewish posts, barking 'Heil Hitler,' claiming Jews run Hollywood and agreeing they should be sent 'back home to Saturn' while denying that its new stance amounted to Nazism. 'Labeling truths as hate speech stifles discussion,' it declared. Musk's company apologized for the upset and scrubbed the 'inappropriate' posts. Still, it was not seemingly enough to save xAI's relationship with the GSA, although the furore was allegedly not noticed, at least initially, by the agency's leadership. 'The week after Grok went MechaHitler, [the GSA's management] was like 'Where are we on Grok?'' the same employee told Wired. 'We were like, 'Do you not read a newspaper?'' When the U.S. government duly announced a series of partnerships with the likes of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, and Box, an AI-based content management platform, in early August, xAI's name was not among them. The GSA has not definitively stated that Grok's outburst was the reason for the scrapping of xAI's proposed contract, but two company employees told Wired they believed that was the case. The Independent has reached out to the GSA for more information. The GSA's talks with the AI firms coincided with Trump's administration publishing its AI Action Plan in July, which laid out its goals for the United States to become a world leader in the emerging sector while calling for a reduction in regulation and red tape.
Times
15 hours ago
- Times
Giving critics the cold shoulder does CEOs no favours
Few things, in financial news, make better copy than a good row between the chief executive of a quoted company and the analysts paid to follow that company's fortunes. Plenty of well-known chief executives have become embroiled in such rows. One of the most famous came during a Tesla earnings call in May 2018 when Elon Musk interrupted Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Bernstein Research, who had the temerity to ask about the company's capital spending. 'Excuse me. Next,' said Musk. 'Next. Boring bonehead questions are not cool. Next?' Joe Spak of RBC Capital Markets, who followed, received a similarly hostile reply to a question about margins: 'Sorry, these questions are so dry. They're killing me.' More notorious still was the occasion in April 2001 when Jeff Skilling, chief executive of Enron, was asked by Richard Grubman, a fund manager at Highfields Capital Management, why the energy company had not supplied a cash flow statement. 'Well, thank you very much, we appreciate that. Asshole,' Skilling replied. Enron filed for bankruptcy eight months later and Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison, later reduced on appeal. There have also been some entertaining bust-ups with analysts on this side of the Atlantic, none more so than in August 2005, when James Eden, of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, asked Sir George Mathewson, chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland, why he thought the bank's shares were so cheap. • The Tesla leaks: what it's really like to work for Elon Musk Asked what he meant, Eden replied: 'There's a perception amongst some investors that [the RBS chief executive] Fred Goodwin's a megalomaniac.' Sir George was recorded as replying, under his breath: 'Shoot him.' Some chief executives try to get around this testiness by speaking only to selected analysts. Netflix raised eyebrows when, eight years ago, it dispensed with open question and answer sessions with sell-side analysts and instead began hosting pre-recorded video interviews with just one analyst. More recently it has taken to collecting 'questions from the analyst community' which are then put to the management by the company's head of investor relations. Similarly, Autonomy, the former FTSE 100 software company, was accused in 2009 of preventing critical analysts from asking questions on earnings calls. The irony is that, according to research recently published in the United States, companies and their chief executives are better off taking on their critics. Jared Flake, assistant professor of accounting at Boise State University in Idaho, analysed 101,225 earnings calls and measured the outcomes of interactions between company managers and analysts regarded as 'unfavourable' — which he defined as 'those who either have an outstanding sell recommendation or have recently downgraded their recommendation'. He found that when a manager answered a question at length from an unfavourable analyst, that analyst was 40 per cent more likely to upgrade their rating of the company's stock than the average unfavourable analyst who did not ask a question. Flake adds: 'I find stronger stock price reactions to forecasts issued by managers who regularly interact with unfavourable analysts.' • Ian King: Substack reels in star investors as media rivals feel the pinch The length of the answer is crucial, though, as it points to an executive giving a considered answer. He found that where a chief executive gave a 'non-answer' such as 'We do not provide this disclosure', or 'I can't give you any specifics', the analyst was 11 per cent less likely to upgrade their rating than the average unfavourable analyst who received a proper answer. Flake says: 'High quality answers, as proxied for by length, further increase analysts' tendency to upgrade … The results suggest that analysts' upward revisions result from not only the opportunity to ask questions, but also from managers' responses.' Although interacting with unfavourable analysts does enhance a chief executive's credibility, not all those taking part in earnings calls will do so, particularly when they have discretion over how much time they allow for questions and the order in which questioners are invited to speak. Unsurprisingly, Flake found that company executives were more likely to interact with unfavourable analysts when compelled to do so, for example after recently disclosing bad news or when a highly rated analyst covering the company was poorly disposed towards it. Yet there are also incentives other than the share price reaction to engage with critics. Flake cites evidence that managers give greater priority to negative questions when they face higher competition, so as to highlight uncertainty and deter rivals. There is also evidence that chief executives allow more critical questions, for similar reasons, to raise their bargaining power during union negotiations. Good chief executives, Flake suggests, will also welcome the extra scrutiny from interacting more with critics because it sets them apart from peers. There may be lessons here for the wider financial services industry. Robert Fullerton, senior research analyst at the wealth manager Hawksmoor Investment Management, observed last week, discussing Flake's research, that it was noticeable how fund managers approached him and his colleagues differently 'if for example the fund has not performed well or something isn't working'. He added: 'The CEO/analyst interaction research suggests this and similar issues are best addressed openly, with some short-term pain paying off in the long run and a better outcome for everyone.' Quite. When the euro replaced legacy currencies, the distinguished financial commentator Christopher Fildes launched his Negroni Index, a way of measuring purchasing power parity. His benchmark was that the cocktail should cost the equivalent of 3,000 old Italian lira to the pound and he noted with pleasure in 2001, when sterling was riding high against the euro, that he could buy three for £10. Fildes's index came to mind during a recent family holiday in Croatia which, since the last visit three years ago, has adopted the euro. In August 2022 a supermarket bottle of Plavac, a popular local red wine, could be obtained for 39 old Croatian kuna — about £4.30 back then. That same bottle now goes for around €10 (about £8.60). Since sterling is only about 2 per cent lower against the euro since August 2022, the conclusion must be that joining the single currency has proved inflationary for Croatia. Either that, or the wine has got better.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Trump's space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say
A draft executive order from Donald Trump that aims to largely exempt space launches from environmental review is viewed as a gift to commercial space industry players such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and others who have long targeted the regulations. But its central components may be illegal and the US president 'is trying to do an end run around' the law, said Jared Margolis, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has litigated environmental issues around launches. If successfully implemented, the launches could create an environmental disaster, advocates say. Rocket launches create a huge amount of pollution that can contaminate local waterways and air with high levels of mercury, Pfas, particulate matter and other highly toxic substances. The vibration, sound waves, heat and explosions damage habitat and kill wildlife, some of which are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The executive order directs the US transportation department to 'use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite' environmental reviews. Among the few protections during space launches is the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) review that considers a wide range of impacts on the environment and human health, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, a federal law that allows states to decide how coastlines are used. The order targets both, and suggests the agency could attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act. 'The order is directing the transportation department to do whatever they can to avoid Nepa, but it doesn't mean that's possible, or that they have the authority to do so,' Margolis said. The executive order comes at a time when commercial space activity is spiking. Musk's SpaceX, the largest space company, did 96 launches in 2023, and is targeting 180 this year. That number is expected to continue growing, while other players, like Bezos's Blue Horizon, are quickly increasing launch rates. The US federal government's environmental oversight of the launches has always been weak, public health advocates say. The Trump administration quickly hobbled several of the few regulatory mechanisms that existed, and recently gutted funding for research into stratospheric pollution largely caused by Musk's SpaceX. 'We're accelerating the number of launches and blinding ourselves to the follow-up effects that they have on the environment – that spells disaster,' said a space industry employee who does work around Nepa issues, but requested anonymity to talk about the order without retribution. Space companies must obtain a launch permit from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which does a Nepa review as part of the process. The reviews are the framework by which federal agencies should assess a project's environmental or human health risks. The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform. Finally, our guide at lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each. They take into consideration air pollution, endangered species harms, water pollution, wildfire risk, noise pollution and potential human health risks, among other issues. The FAA has faced criticism from space companies for taking too long to review launch permits – about five months – while environmental groups have lambasted the agency for not using Nepa reviews to require more protections at launch sites. The executive order in part directs the department to classify the launches as 'categorical exclusions', which is the legal term for minor changes to a site that do not require a Nepa environmental review. Among other categorical exclusions are landscaping or lighting alterations. Legal experts who reviewed the order questioned the legality of the claim that a rocket launch has similar environmental impacts to landscaping changes. The plan 'fits with their overall desire to eliminate environmental considerations and reviews', said Dan Farber, an environmental law attorney with the University of California, Berkeley. 'Clearly what Trump wants to do is bulldoze through all this procedural stuff,' Farber added. However, there is a more legally plausible route. The Commercial Space Launch Act does include a provision that allows the transportation secretary to attempt to exempt requirements of environmental law if it is determined that the law is not necessary to protect the 'public health and the safety of property', Margolis said. That would be accomplished through a legal rulemaking process. But the provision is in conflict with Nepa, which applies to any federal action that has significant environmental impact, Margolis said. 'We would argue that review is necessary to protect public health and safety, and Nepa applies,' he added. The Nepa reviews provide a valuable legal avenue for challenges to the worst abuses, and Margolis said the order seems to be a response to arguments he made in which the Center for Biological Diversity sued several federal agencies and SpaceX over launches from the Boca Chica, Texas launch site on the Gulf of Mexico. The site sits next to a sensitive habitat for protected species, like the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, which is on the brink of extinction. SpaceX has launched the largest rockets ever made from the site, and several of those exploded, raining down particulate matter, metal and concrete across the region. The debris caused brush fires and covered homes six miles away in dust. Sound waves from launches have been known to kill birds and other animals, and SpaceX has been cited by state environmental regulators in Texas for spitting wastewater highly contaminated with mercury into adjacent waters. Still, the FAA has done little to mitigate the damage to the environment, and claimed the issues did not warrant an in-depth review. Margolis said SpaceX, with the FAA's blessing, had turned the ecologically sensitive area into a 'sacrifice zone', and the litigation is ongoing. The order also seems designed to aid Musk in his fight with California state regulators who have so far stopped SpaceX from expanding the number of launches along the coastline, in part using their authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Trump's order would give federal authorities more power to intervene, and restrict state agencies' decision-making powers. Margolis said this part of the order was also illegal because Trump was again attempting to change the law by decree. 'It's a talking point to show he's supporting industry, but at the end of the day it's not something that can happen the way he says it can happen,' Margolis said.
