延伸说一下,如果存在大佬可以畅所欲言,无所顾忌讲真话的局,普通人绝对没可能参与,给钱也不行。如果有普通人可以出点钱就能和大佬面对面沟通,那你就别指望能听到真话和实话。 所谓高端社交局,大体如此,想和大佬真诚沟通,先多想想自己凭什么。
👍57🤡4🌚2❤1🥱1

Channel
@caozsay
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
13,450subscribers
-32 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001162491055 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @caozsay |
| Created | Between 1 April 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 17 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 10 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 17 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/caozsay |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 17 Aug 2026, 13:17 | 13,450 | -6 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 05:15 | 13,456 | -6 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 14:48 | 13,462 | -4 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 04:54 | 13,466 | +1 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 02:02 | 13,465 | -4 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 22:32 | 13,469 | -6 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 21:22 | 13,475 | -4 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 20:53 | 13,479 | -3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:10 | 13,482 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 04:15 | 13,482 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 26 May 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 20 pagesof 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 5 of 6 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (26 May 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 38,370 |
| Reactions total | 255 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 15 Aug 2026, 11:29 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.
1,734 reactions across 19 posts, in 25 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 35.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 611 | 35.2% | |
| ❤ | 334 | 19.3% | |
| 🤡 | 301 | 17.4% | |
| 😁 | 267 | 15.4% | |
| 👎 | 33 | 1.90% | |
| 😐 | 31 | 1.79% | |
| 🔥 | 25 | 1.44% | |
| 🤮 | 23 | 1.33% | |
| 😇 | 17 | 0.98% | |
| 😭 | 17 | 0.98% | |
| 🤣 | 12 | 0.692% | |
| 🤔 | 11 | 0.634% | |
| 🥰 | 9 | 0.519% | |
| 👏 | 8 | 0.461% | |
| 💯 | 8 | 0.461% | |
| 🥱 | 6 | 0.346% | |
| 🍌 | 4 | 0.231% | |
| 🤓 | 3 | 0.173% | |
| 🤷♂ | 3 | 0.173% | |
| 🫡 | 3 | 0.173% | |
| 5 further kinds | 8 | 0.461% |
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 19 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 1,734reactions 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 26 May 2026 to 12 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @caozsay. 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 26 May 2026 to 12 August 2026. 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.
延伸说一下,如果存在大佬可以畅所欲言,无所顾忌讲真话的局,普通人绝对没可能参与,给钱也不行。如果有普通人可以出点钱就能和大佬面对面沟通,那你就别指望能听到真话和实话。 所谓高端社交局,大体如此,想和大佬真诚沟通,先多想想自己凭什么。
👍57🤡4🌚2❤1🥱1
我最近才知道卢克文的公众号和微博都被封了。 我现在其实有点理解卢克文了,当他开开心心做个傻逼的时候,他可以轻松收割流量和财富,但有了财富有了名气,有一天不想做傻逼了,想着留下点有用的作品了,突然发现什么都不能写,什么都不能说。 不知道卢克文现在有没有理解当年骂他的人。
❤38😁35🤮9👍6
再试试商铺
😁15❤6🤷♂3
刚微信视频号直播间放了这张图,直接被掐了,再次喜提违规限流。
❤14🐳1👎1
和AI聊天,收集了一张图。
😐28🤡21👏4😁4❤3🤔2
https://x.com/i/status/2078784058306507148
奇怪,发出来怎么无法打开。再试一次,还是那句话,写的挺好的,如果不是因为删帖了值得星球一篇精华。
👍51👎6🤡6🤔3😁1
欧洲最大的问题是什么,是他妈压根不解决问题。 1,第一种人,就是我没遇到问题,所以问题不存在。 典型的,我在欧洲,我家里有空调,所以欧洲不存在空调问题。 按照这个逻辑,中国不存在就业压力问题,非洲部分贫困国家也不存在饥饿的问题。总有大聪明会出来说,我身边的人都有工作啊,我身边的人都有饭吃啊。 现在不少人假装不知道欧洲热浪对很多无空调居民的影响。 2,堆砌理由,找借口总比找解决方案容易。 人力成本高啊,环保意识高啊,人权意识好啊,古建筑保护啊,这个那个一堆理由,反正就是一切都合理,就是不解决问题。 合理就完了,就心安理得了。 所以美的才有机会,就算你有100个理由(也是100个障碍),我也要找到能全都规避的解决方案,这才是解决问题的态度。 一群口high党天天刷存在感,刷正确,刷自我感动,就是不解决问题,欧洲这个病,不止是空调,各方各面都是。 然后说完这个再吐槽一下,就是二极管们特别喜欢扣个帽子。 你说欧洲有…
👍112❤11🤡10🤮5🔥4🫡3😐3🍌1
1,阿嬷的情书是不是统战片,如果你说人家开始拍摄的时候没想过,或许是对的,但上映之后,国内统战部门亲自站台,新加坡上映中国大使馆官员亲自响应,已经被统战部门当作工具了,这也是事实。2,联合早报是否官方意志,联合早报确实有新加坡政府资金支持,但新加坡的舆论管控和中国完全不是一回事,简单说就是,只要不涉及底线,政府并不过度干预媒体,这种讨论是民间评论,和政府没毛关系,中国人总用国内官媒思路去理解。一个典型事实,这个片子在新加坡上映了有没有。排片也很高有没有,中国大使馆的人去站台新加坡政府也没说啥有没有,你统战你的,人家没那么在乎。3,又有人说,不给开潮汕话版本,还是限制了啊。新加坡本来讲潮汕话的就少,除了官方四种语言外其他语种都需要特批,这个不是因为你这部电影制定的政策,是几十年的政策,那么这部特批了没有,特批了,开了八个场次潮汕话版本,当然有人说不够是真的,还是政府官员说的哦,这个是可以公开讨论的,是可以公开呼吁的。4,对于中国网…
👍78🤡36❤12👎9🤮1😁1
Posted without readable text
❤12👎5🤡2
再度分享个人偏见,目前全球无人机战争功防的排名,我个人认为是这样的,乌克兰第一,俄罗斯第二,大概以色列可以排第三,以色列无人机攻击手段是很丰富的,防御还没经历过太严苛的考验。 实战磨练出来的,不是纸上谈兵能比的,当然对于其他大国来说,真遇到状况了,战争中学习迭代,能力提升一定是很快的,但现在肯定是比不了这几个的。 乌克兰和北约军事演习,无人机虐北约跟玩一样。
🔥21👍11🤡10😁5🥱4👎3❤2🍾2
回国遛娃,花钱消费,不惹麻烦,直播都不开了,本来敏感日不打算讲啥,没想到啊没想到,居然连我儿子都被敏感日波及了。 儿子每次回国,手机上网必连VPN,因为他每天都刷youtube,用谷歌,以及chatgpt(遇到不会的作业已经很自如的问AI了),就是海外小朋友的日常而已,昨天还好好的,今天突然就各种不可用了,跑来跟我讲,让我解决。 这,也不知道咋解释是吧。 你说他小小年纪我也没打算给他灌输啥历史知识,有关部门非要提醒提醒又提醒,我自己本都不想提的。
😁92🤡28🤣10👍7❤4👏4🤓1🥰1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @caozsay. 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.
Citation-graph rank — 349,927 of 1,481,502entries 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.
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 17 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“caoz的梦呓” (@caozsay), 13,450 subscribers as measured 17 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/caozsay.
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.