Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Байесятина

Channel

Байесятина

@bayesyatinaa

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

3,629subscribers

-8 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001483006820
TypeChannel
Username@bayesyatinaa
CreatedBetween 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live19 September 2026
Measurements held13
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 19 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/bayesyatinaa

Topic

Education — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 14 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 53% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

3,6253,6373,6316 August 2026 — 3,637 subscribers7 August 2026 — 3,637 subscribers10 August 2026 — 3,636 subscribers13 August 2026 — 3,637 subscribers16 August 2026 — 3,633 subscribers19 August 2026 — 3,632 subscribers22 August 2026 — 3,631 subscribers25 August 2026 — 3,630 subscribers28 August 2026 — 3,628 subscribers1 September 2026 — 3,629 subscribers5 September 2026 — 3,631 subscribers10 September 2026 — 3,625 subscribers19 September 2026 — 3,629 subscribers3,6296 August 202619 September 2026
13 measurements spanning 44 days, net -8. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 3,623–3,639 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
19 Sept 2026, 10:203,629+4
10 Sept 2026, 20:363,625-6
5 Sept 2026, 16:193,631+2
1 Sept 2026, 07:183,629+1
28 Aug 2026, 22:143,628-2
25 Aug 2026, 23:483,630-1
22 Aug 2026, 18:563,631-1
19 Aug 2026, 17:483,632-1
16 Aug 2026, 22:143,633-4
13 Aug 2026, 14:283,637+1
10 Aug 2026, 04:363,636-1
7 Aug 2026, 04:483,637no change
6 Aug 2026, 21:323,637first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 21 March 2024the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 27 December 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

1,510 reactions across 20 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 47.5% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
🔥71847.5%
👍64142.5%
🤣956.29%
👎281.85%
🤔281.85%

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 20 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 1,510 reactions 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 21 March 2024 to 27 December 2025, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Telegram Stars

Stars received
1,242
across the posts below
Posts paid on
14
of 20 we hold a reading for · 70%
Most on one post
1,000
single highest reading

A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @bayesyatinaa. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.

Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.

This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.

Counted over the 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 21 March 2024 to 27 December 2025. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.

Recent posts

27 Dec 2025, 11:07 UTC≈2,880 views80 reactions15 Starsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @Fourier_series

Как-то @Achisov с канала @bayesyatinaa про рациональное мышление напомнил про кризис воспроизводимости в психологии. Вот две опорные работы. Если очень коротко, что произошло: — Часть экспериментов психологов, на которых строится вся наука, нельзя повторить с тем же результатом. В других науках обычно можно, и это и делает науку наукой. — Почему? Потому что психологи оказались самыми предвзятыми по каким-то причинам

👍46🤣33🔥1

17 Dec 2025, 12:35 UTC≈4,190 views49 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Спорный текст о спорах. В пирамиде аргументации легко заблудиться. Если вас это не пугает, то приглашаю вас на мысленную прогулку в концептуальном пространстве. Мы познакомимся со Сфинксом мета-дебатов, охраняющим ваш покой. Посетим шумное подножие пирамиды, пропитанное духом Эриды (богини раздора) с презрительно насмешливой улыбкой, где на каждом углу поджидают хитрые риторические ловушки. Пройдём через промежуточ

👍29🔥15🤔4👎1

9 Dec 2025, 10:34 UTC≈4,390 views94 reactions2 Starsread 7 August 2026
File

Поздравляю всех с праздником! Вероятно, вы не в курсе, но 9 декабря 1979 — это день одной из величайших побед в истории человечества. Победы, которую мы обычно не отмечаем, хотя она куда масштабнее большинства официальных дат в календаре. Предлагаю вам послушать мою озвучку чужого текста, сохраняя интригу на счёт самого события. Полагаю, финал стоит ожидания. Для остальных спойлер: Всех с днём победы над оспой.

🔥67👍26👎1

29 Aug 2025, 11:33 UTC≈7,360 views69 reactions7 Starsread 7 August 2026

«Факты никого не переубеждают», «спорить бесполезно», «люди всё равно никогда не меняют своего мнения» — ловили себя на таких мыслях? Может, прямо сейчас вы думаете так же? Тогда у меня для вас кое-что интересное.

🔥49👍13🤔7

28 Aug 2025, 12:07 UTC≈6,450 views92 reactions100 Starsread 7 August 2026

Нет больших фанатиков, чем новообращённые. Это относится к любым идеям. В их числе: научный метод, логика, критическое мышление, рациональность, борьба с когнитивными искажениями и так далее. Может ли радикальная романтизация этих идей стать эпистемическим болотом?

🔥58👍32👎2

23 Aug 2025, 15:35 UTC≈7,240 views96 reactions110 Starsread 7 August 2026

Сколько нужно ученых, чтобы горела лампочка?

🔥60👍24🤣8👎3🤔1

24 Apr 2025, 16:05 UTC≈7,190 views57 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Текстовая версия выступления на форуме учёные против мифов. «Да, учёные не уверены, что луна не состоит из зелёного сыра. Однако если мы предложим астроному Владимиру Сурдину предположить, что мы привезём из ближайшей лунной экспедиции, то он скорее всего поставит тысячу рублей к вашему одному на лунный реголит против зелёного сыра и будет считать это крайне выгодной сделкой». «Тут я хотел поговорить про эксперимен

🔥43👍14

24 Apr 2025, 05:17 UTC≈7,040 views130 reactions1,000 Starsread 7 August 2026

👋 Для тех, кто тут впервые: Меня зовут Роман Ачисов, вы на канале Байесятина (отсылка к теореме Байеса), и мы здесь пытаемся меньше ошибаться. Не мыслить идеально, не быть всегда правым, не побеждать в спорах, а чуть реже идти на север, когда хотим на юг. 📌 Канал стоит на четырёх темах — как табуретка на четырёх ножках: 🧠 Психология Наш мозг — не идеальный вычислитель истины, а швейцарский нож для выживания и побед

👍81🔥49

22 Mar 2025, 10:49 UTC≈7,940 views67 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Научный метод — гарантия истины? А что, если он может доказать даже чушь? Разбираем, как сдвигаются границы доказательности, почему статистика может сыграть злую шутку и как это всё связано с кризисом воспроизводимости. А заодно поговорим об "аргументе доказывающем слишком многое", софистах и их роли в научном прогрессе.

👍45🔥22

21 Feb 2025, 14:52 UTC≈7,370 views73 reactionsread 7 August 2026

«Если я что-то утверждаю, я не обязан предоставлять доказательства. Если вы утверждаете обратное, опровергая меня, это вы должны доказательства предоставлять», - Никита Михалков. Так кто же обязан доказывать? Разберёмся в правилах спортивного перекидывания бремени доказательств.

👍50🔥20👎3

2 Feb 2025, 16:23 UTC≈8,380 views50 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Кто твой авторитет?

🔥33👍11🤔6

24 Jul 2024, 10:03 UTC≈9,470 views99 reactions1 Starread 7 August 2026
Photo

В комментарии к последнему видео мне задали вопрос: Расскажите, пожалуйста, в одном из следующих видео о дисциплинах, которые изучают рациональность и ошибки, и в целом то, о чем ваш канал. Хочется изучить их более детально, за пределами Ютуба в том числе, а с чего начать не ясно: то ли это логика, то ли теории игр и принятия решений, иногда вообще кажется, что это философия. На ваш телеграм я подписан и книги, котор

🔥71👍21🤔4🤣3

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @bayesyatinaa. 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.

Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.

Forward network

Republishes

Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.

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.

Mentions

Names

Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.

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.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.

Александр Панчин
@ScienceInquisition · 49,363
Telegram ranks this channel #11 of 97 here — alongside 96 others — read 25 August 2026
Ряды Фурье
@Fourier_series · 42,189
Telegram ranks this channel #27 of 93 here — alongside 92 others — read 29 August 2026

This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

Cite this entry

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 19 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Байесятина” (@bayesyatinaa), 3,629 subscribers as measured 19 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/bayesyatinaa.

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.