3 measurements spanning 4 days, net -4. 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 3,018–3,024 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
10 Aug 2026, 20:44
3,019
-1
7 Aug 2026, 12:26
3,020
-3
6 Aug 2026, 17:18
3,023
first reading
Engagement
20 posts held, back to 26 November 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
26.0%
avg views ÷ 3,019 subscribers
Avg views / post
784
1 post measured
Reaction rate
4.34%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 20 held
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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 25 July 2026
Posts held
20 (26 November 2025 – 25 July 2026)
Views total
784
Reactions total
34
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 00:11 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.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
2m 20s
Average length
1m 10s
Measured directly from 2 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
455 reactions across 20 posts, in 22 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 35.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
161
35.4%
🔥
116
25.5%
🎉
44
9.67%
👍
39
8.57%
custom 5274132982364379078
27
5.93%
custom 5296665364346727584
19
4.18%
😱
9
1.98%
👎
6
1.32%
⚡
5
1.10%
👏
5
1.10%
🤔
4
0.879%
💯
3
0.659%
🙏
3
0.659%
🥰
3
0.659%
✍
2
0.44%
👌
2
0.44%
💘
2
0.44%
🍾
1
0.22%
🎄
1
0.22%
🏆
1
0.22%
2 further kinds
2
0.44%
Custom emoji. 2 of the rows above are Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The counts beside them areTelegram’s.
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 455reactions 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 November 2025 to 25 July 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
7
across the posts below
Posts paid on
6
of 20 we hold a reading for · 30%
Most on one post
2
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @deferpanic. 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 November 2025 to 25 July 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.
🦄 Опубликовал платформу для гайдов и первую статью
https://golang.guide/
Надеюсь, вам понравится, я очень старался ☀️
Там всего один единственный гайд — первая часть серии статей про Планировщик. Даже если вы читали оригинальную статью, или смотрели ролик, всё равно советую перечитать — тут полный ремастер и режисёрская версия с интерактивом 👍
Остальные статьи уже в работе. Буду выпускать их по мере сил.
Советую…
Новость из немного другого мира: Эрин Катто, автор легендарного* физического движка Box2D, какое-то время назад очнулся и объявил, что пилит новый движок. Собственно, на днях вышла первая версия Box3D — в каком-то смысле то же самое, но для 3D-игр и приложений.
Как только вышел первый релиз, люди сразу побежали портировать его под разные таргеты. Классический порт — на JS. Но есть, например, и интеграция Box3D с Uni…
Я решил провести эксперимент и написать что-то на абсолютно незнакомом языке для абсолютно незнакомой (с точки зрения разработки) платформы.
Критерии такие:
• Это что-то полезное как минимум лично для меня
• Можно будет выложить публично
• Сложнее чем менеджер тудушек, но не слишком
• Не враппер для LLM
• Не требует затрат на инфраструктуру
В итоге посмотрел в сторону проблемы разделения рабочего и нерабочего конте…
🥂Большой выпуск про PaaS — как Avito и Plata строят платформу для разработки / GoGetPodcast
- Видео
- Ссылки на аудио-площадки
Когда-то давно я часто ходил на IT конференции, и один из немногих запомнившихся мне докладов был про PaaS Авито. Очень впечатлило, как у них там по нажатию одной кнопочки происходят сложные автоматизации процессов.
К сожалению, поработать у них и пощупать это руками мне так и не довелось,…
⚙️ Лучшие практики в Go: разбираем на Podlodka Go Crew
Пишете на Go и хотите узнать, как закладывать надёжную основу для своих проектов? С 1 по 5 июня Podlodka Go Crew вместе с 2ГИС проведут сезон «Лучшие практики в Go». Организаторы собрали сильную программу с акцентом на живой опыт и прикладные кейсы.
Вот несколько сессий, на которые советуем обратить внимание:
🚀 «Практика Go оптимизаций: растем вместе с нагрузк…
Вышел Zed 1.0
Не обращайте внимания на версию — Зедом можно было пользоваться уже очень давно. Зед был моим «вторым» редактором последние несколько лет, периодически меняясь с Вимом. Где-то с начала этого года или конца предыдущего это мой единственный редактор. В том смысле, что я в этом году ни разу не запустил ни GoLand, ни Visual Studio Code.
Зед одновременно невероятно быстрый и отзывчивый (по ощущениям пример…
Есть блог Not a Number, в котором автор не просто пишет туториалы, а делает их интерактивными. Посты там в основном про фронтенд, но есть, например, и про написание собственной key-value базы данных.
Меня всегда цепляют авторы, которые подходят к каждому блог-посту как к отдельному спецпроекту. Это подкупает, я сильнее вовлекаюсь в статью, а интерактивные части только усиливают эффект.
🧬 Proposal: Generic Methods для Go
Robert Griesemer (один из авторов языка) открыл proposal, который многие считали невозможным. Go FAQ буквально говорил:
> We do not anticipate that Go will ever add generic methods
Но теперь — возможно, добавят 👍
Суть в том, что раньше дженерик-методы блокировались по цепочке: если методы могут принимать параметры типов, значит и методы интерфейсов тоже должны. А это не знали ка…
Пару недель назад собрал на коленке штуку, которая обходит rss-фиды сайтов с новостями индустрии развлечений, выбирает по разным признакам самые интересные статьи и постит мне в отдельный канал.
Мне было в первую очередь интересно поиграться с новым инструментом, но в какой-то момент обнаружил, что я реально читаю канал, и это теперь мой основной источник новостей про игры и технологии про игры.
Все что угодно може…
Visual Studio Code и/или его форках (Cursor, Windsurf, Antigravity, etc.)48%
Intellij IDEA (GoLand, PyCharm, etc.)33%
Zed15%
Другой редактор или IDE18%
The shares total 114%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @deferpanic. 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.
Polls
The 2 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Visual Studio Code и/или его форках (Cursor, Windsurf, Antigravity, etc.)48%
Intellij IDEA (GoLand, PyCharm, etc.)33%
Zed15%
Другой редактор или IDE18%
The shares total 114%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Я знаю, что это такое, но не планирую использовать21%
Я знаю, что это такое и хочу попробовать13%
Я знаю, что это такое и использую13%
Что за девконтейнеры?54%
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 26 November 2025 to 25 July 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 673,414 of 1,169,250entries 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.
Forward network
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.
Mentions
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.
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 10 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“defer panic” (@deferpanic), 3,019 subscribers as measured 10 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/deferpanic.
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.
