Channel
@BoreMeNo
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
317subscribers
+2 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001403591516 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @BoreMeNo |
| Created | Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/BoreMeNo |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 12:38 | 317 | +2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 23:48 | 315 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 23:36 | 315 | first reading |
19 posts held, back to 5 June 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 3 of 5 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 3 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 19 (5 June 2026 – 3 August 2026) |
| Views total | 686 |
| Reactions total | 8 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 23:48 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
59 reactions across 15 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 52.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 31 | 52.5% | |
| 🔥 | 17 | 28.8% | |
| 😁 | 4 | 6.78% | |
| ❤ | 3 | 5.08% | |
| 🥰 | 3 | 5.08% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 1.69% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 15 of the 19 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 59reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 5 June 2026 to 3 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Well, duh. I kinda want to merge this PR given it's approved! And the web UI showing this PR as "can't merge due to conflicts" is sure not helping. When the true reason is that "100 commits should be enough for everybody". Merged (well, rebased) in just fine after making it 100 commits. Happy end.
🥰2
Reading about whether our younger generation is getting ... less smart since the incentives of teachers are all messed up makes me wonder more and more. Why not use a trivial way to shield teachers from angry parents of not-so-bright kids? The way I proposed many many years ago, and the way a few (more totalitarian, sigh) regimes are quite happily adopting. The solution is to separate the teacher from the one who …
👍3🔥2
Something made me look up these numbers because I was curious. Flying East over the Equator really does make a 100kg person temporarily lose 1kg in their weight, although obviously not in their mass. My instinct was that it might get close to 1% or even cross that threshold. Physics appears to align with this instinct; well, vice versa, of course. Cute nonetheless.
And just like that I have hit the Github API rate limit.
TIL: “Require linear history” is not enough on GitHub Two GitHub settings solve different problems: • Require linear history keeps main free of merge commits. • Require branches to be up to date before merging ensures CI actually ran against the current main. One could have two PRs based on version 1.0, each bumping it to 1.1, and both passing CI. The first merged and shipped 1.1. The second stayed green since i…
🔥1
Weirdest personal observation of the month: Long fights do not feel long enough with several coging agents to herd. (Yes, I'm working towards herding them less, like many if not most engineers these days. But those agents still require attention, ata least so far.) So, on the one hand, it's not that much toil. I can handle two or three parallel tracks despite not sleeping for quite a few hours. As in, my brain on a…
🔥5😁2
𝗜'𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Even with all the exponential growth of AI-assisted coding, we're still on the same bell curve: all-encompassing deep-knowledge engineers are getting more and more productive, while the average hardly moves. In other words, it is more and more beneficial if you truly are a talented engineer who 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 to keep doing software engineering, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 wants to b…
👍2
Discovery of the day: AI is really good at cleaning up space. Sometimes repo clones, build artifacts, Docker containers, Apple containers, and Python cache pile up and eat too much of my disk, and I have to spend time wiping them out. Eventually I just asked the AI: "Could you please help me understand what takes the most space and what is safe to clean?" Whenever I tried myself I could usually only free up single…
👍3
I think I can finally formulate something that makes me more of an engineer than ... a non-engineer. It is no longer that I want my processes to be deterministic. That has been gone for a couple of months now. AI agents are far too powerful to disregard, and there is evidently not much to be won by forcing their workflows to be 100% reproducible. It is possible, yes; it is just pointless. The correct approach, I b…
👍7🔥1
It's still beyond me how top labs make it difficult to copy or "print to PDF" the history of some chat. While these very models are notoriously good at structuring unstructured content. While these very models can literally control our desktop. Never attribute to malice ...
❤1
So it happened — I Claude-coded an app for my personal use. I got tired of copy-pasting URLs between browsers to keep login sessions and whatnot separate. Switching the default browser all the time is cumbersome too. And the app I quickly found stops being free after 14 days. But Fable is here. So I thought about the problem statement and the best way to shape the "product" — and built it in a few prompts. Now I ca…
🔥7👍1👏1
So I was chatting with a friend yesterday — hi @@danielkornev! — and he said something deep: that it's easier for a non-engineer to build a good harness toolkit compared to an engineer. I took it as a challenge to steelman the argument, since I quite liked it. My phrasing went along the following lines. What engineers take as durability is a bit too rigid when it comes to a harness, while a product owner's brain is…
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @BoreMeNo. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 482,039 of 1,345,403entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Not boring, and a bit of a condescending prick” (@BoreMeNo), 317 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/BoreMeNo.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.