Photo, posted without a caption
🥴3

Channel
@ObservingHumanActivity
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,273subscribers
+16 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001941572747 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ObservingHumanActivity |
| Created | Between 1 March 2023 and 31 October 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ObservingHumanActivity |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Aug 2026, 08:53 | 1,273 | +7 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 03:05 | 1,266 | +9 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 11:01 | 1,257 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 10:59 | 1,257 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 5 August 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 2 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (5 August 2026 – 7 August 2026) |
| Views total | 3,315 |
| Reactions total | 3 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 11:01 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.
3 reactions across 1 post, in 1 kind.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🥴 | 3 | 100.0% |
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 2 of the 20 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 3reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 7 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.
Photo, posted without a caption
🥴3
讲清楚,我要的从来不是必须是 xhttp,那只是举例。我的核心观点是:赞助和白嫖之间,应该始终保留某种差异,不管具体是什么形式。 至于说”这不是商业项目,所以不用差异化”——我觉得正好相反。开源项目靠的是大家掏钱支持的善意,Patreon、GitHub Sponsors 这些平台,给早期支持者留一点专属的东西,从来都不是”因为你付钱所以欠你”,而是对支持者的一点尊重。现在这点尊重也没了。 TestFlight 和 xhttp 是两码事,这个我认。但我想问一句:当年赞助换来的那个差异已经没了,以后是不是就再也不会有任何形式的差异了?如果连这个都没有,那以后还有谁愿意赞助?
其实赞助和购买在定义上确实不是一回事,这点我承认,当时赞助者也确实能更早用上 TestFlight,这个差异是真实存在的。 但现实是,自己编译也算不上真正的”白嫖”——得有 Mac、装好开发环境,而且这种要用到网络扩展权限的 App,个人免费账号常常搞不定,最后大概率还是得掏那 $99 办开发者账号。 现在官方版免费上架,功能跟当年赞助拿到的版本已经没区别了,早期支持者那点差异化也就没了。我说的从来不是”赞助等于购买”这种定义之争,而是:给早期支持过项目的人加个 xhttp 这种小功能,当作一点心意,是个挺合理的姿态,不是无理取闹。
你说要沟通直接点,那我就直接说:我之前已经私信给开发者发过好几次消息了,我今天的消息本身就是回复之前的聊天记录。关于添加 xhttp 的讨论,本来就是我和他之间的旧话题,我原本等待的也是他本人的回应,而不是其他用户。说白了,我当时并不希望你或者其他人插手进来。
何意味,又有什么新东西
https://sekai.icu/posts/three-years-of-sing-box/ 猜你想搜
既然可以说你们已经把客户端的正式版免费开放在App Store上了,那能不能好歹照顾一下我们这些花钱买的用户,加上xhttp功能?现在看来,我们付费买的版本相比App Store上的免费版已经没有任何优势了。
我不知道你们为什么会对此感到疑惑,但之前想用iOS版本必须先赞助付费,其实可以说就是在花钱买这个应用。我真不知道这有什么奇怪的——难道你们没有付费用过这个应用的iOS版本吗?!
对,我知道那是赞助。但问题是,当时想用 iOS 版就只能通过赞助,没有别的途径。所以实际上赞助就等于买 App,本质上没有区别。如果当时不赞助也能获得 iOS 版,那才是真正意义上的赞助。
这些clash都是mihomo内核吗
翻墙就用iphone
然后买谷歌pixel和三星也是抖m
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @ObservingHumanActivity. 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 — 1,030,419 of 1,160,990entries 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.
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 11 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“人 类 观 察” (@ObservingHumanActivity), 1,273 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ObservingHumanActivity.
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.