AOL outages and service status in Castleford, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Castleford, England

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Castleford, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

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.

AOL Issues Reports Near Castleford, England

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Castleford and nearby locations:

• 
  Andrew Stubbs (@andyjstubbs24) reported 3 seconds ago from Wakefield, England

  @AOLSupportHelp hello I hope you can help me for some reason I’m not able to receive emails for the last 48 hours, also because ive had my account with aol for so long I can’t remember the password to log back in ive tryed to log out and log back in again

• 
  Sam Clark (@clarkswfc) reported 27 minutes ago from Leeds, England

  @AOLSupportHelp @aolmail is there a problem with downloading attachments in emails? Can’t seem to open any. Any advice? Get an error code EC 4008?

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  patriotic_canadian (@GKomus79144) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Reil76 damn.. another part of pop culture gone i still have an aol disc mobile somewhere

• 
  Matt (@TeeReno) reported 16 minutes ago

  @BadfishRanch @BlueFlameBlues As someone who was nearing 30 in the mid-2000s when started I had never had an AOL account before. Blew my mind that all my counterparty interactions were using that platform. No ICE chat then too but you could message anyone in the bid stack which is bonkers to think about too

• 
  Washingtonian (@TweetsFromWA) reported 16 minutes ago

  @JimmyC1366 Purchased a desktop computer in the early 90's at Costco for $2500. With a dial-up modem and slow as a snail. And the only way to make thing work was to buy an AOL or other stupid cd disc and pay outrages bills to them.

• 
  sef (@btcsef) reported 17 minutes ago

  let’s start off with the claim that he hacked the cia. reality: justin liverman has never actually hacked anything before, his claim of hacking the cia comes from when his group social engineered AOL to reset a guy who works at the CIA’s email. this is the easiest thing ever 1/2

• 
  Pascal Arlotta (@PascalArlotta) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Irina_exh I never had an AOL account....19 out of 20

• 
  Kathleen Lenkeit voted for Hillary, Joe, & Kamala (@KathleenLenkeit) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Sheldon_305 19 - never on AOL

• 
  ramzy (@0xRamzy) reported 25 minutes ago

  AOL paid $165 billion to win Time Warner in 2000 and wrote off $99 billion of it two years later. A quiet Yale lecture from 2007 proves the same mechanic that killed that deal is silently draining money from every homebuyer, every hiring manager, and every person who has ever won an eBay auction. The lecture is part of the free game theory course Yale posted online. The professor teaches with a hundred undergraduates and a piece of chalk. No slides, no textbook required. His name is Ben Polak. He ran Yale's economics department, was later made Provost of the university, and spent fifteen years teaching this same course to a lecture hall of students paying $60,000 a year for seats a stranger with an internet connection could sit in for free. The idea has a name. The winner's curse. It was first identified in a 1971 paper by three oil engineers at Atlantic Richfield who had noticed something odd about their industry. Every major oil company in America was bidding on offshore drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico. They all had geologists and the same maps. The winner of each lease, on average, was losing money on the field. The engineers proved that when everyone estimates the same object with roughly equal error, the person who wins is almost always the one who over-estimated the most. Winning was proof of being wrong. The check they wrote was the receipt. The full lecture fits into three sentences. If you and a room full of reasonable people are all bidding for the same thing, your best estimate of it is almost certainly too high. If it were low, you would not be the one winning. The number of losers you beat is information about how wrong you are. Polak's summary is one line: shade your bid. Not because you are stupid. Because winning is the strongest signal in the market that you paid too much. Concrete case: a young couple bids on a three-bedroom house against fourteen other offers in a hot April market. They win at $80,000 over asking. They feel triumphant for one week. Two years later three of the losing bidders have bought the same style house on the same street for $60,000 less. The couple never sees a "for sale" sign. They just have a mortgage that eats every raise for the next decade. Every buyer who has ever won a house at $30,000 over the second-highest offer paid $29,999 more than the market thought it was worth. Every hiring manager who beat two other companies to a candidate is paying the number that was too high for two other adults. Every free-agent contract in sports that "shocks the league" was set by the one general manager who was most optimistic in the room. The lecture is on YouTube. Yale posted it in 2007. Almost none of the millions who have watched it ever shaded a bid on the next thing they wanted. The math is free. Bidding a little less than you feel like on the next thing you want to win is the entire edge. ↓

• 
  Matt Laroo (@Matty_Laroo) reported 25 minutes ago

  Such a weird time discussing AI with anyone who isn't super in the weeds right now. 99.9% of people who have been exposed to AI only know "chat", which in my experience is the worst current use case for AI (can be inaccurate, biased, too sycophantic, etc). Meanwhile, the 0.1% actually building **** (be it apps, businesses, websites, dashboards, slide decks, business plans, etc) or using it to help organize your life (translating "stream of consciousness" into readable notes, managing your inbox/calendar, creating a second-brain wiki from links, etc) is seeing where this is all going. Big difference is that the user (YOU!) have direct input on the outputs, whereas chat is just the delusion that you are getting correct answers from some digital deity (just a text version of brain rot, imo). It makes having conversations super weird, like explaining the potential of the internet to someone who only logged on to AOL to read/send email.

• 
  Virginia Ray (@VirginaRay57067) reported 28 minutes ago

  @thorMjolniro It turned out AOL never said that. MB checked it out. AND it turned out to be false. Because I do think she is stupid I believed it and did not check it with grok.

• 
  nathanistic (@nathanistic) reported 30 minutes ago

  Koalas already sleep 18 to 20 hours a day just to survive on a diet of tough, low-calorie eucalyptus leaves, so during breeding season, when males travel across territory and call repeatedly searching for a mate, that search comes at a real energy cost. If success doesn't come quickly, researchers have observed both males and females essentially cut their losses, males quiet down and stop searching, while females retreat to familiar trees and reduce movement to lower stress and conserve energy. It's less about giving up out of frustration and more about biology forcing a hard limit, koalas run on such a strict energy budget that continuing to search nonstop could actually drain the reserves they need just to stay healthy for the next breeding opportunity. Later in the season, once energy reserves stabilize, males often pick the calls back up again. There's something oddly relatable about an animal whose entire strategy for disappointment is just going back to sleep. Does knowing the actual biology behind it make the koala nap life even funnier, or does it take away from the joke? Sources: AOL, WWF, A-Z Animals