3 measurements spanning 4 days, net -2. 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 1,058–1,060 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
11 Aug 2026, 04:13
1,058
-2
8 Aug 2026, 00:18
1,060
no change
7 Aug 2026, 16:00
1,060
first reading
Engagement
18 posts held, back to 20 March 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 · 30 days
45.4%
avg views ÷ 1,058 subscribers
Avg views / post
480
2 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.50%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 18 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 21 July 2026
Posts held
18 (20 March 2026 – 21 July 2026)
Views total
960
Reactions total
24
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 00:18 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.
Reaction mix
323 reactions across 18 posts, in 18 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 34.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
111
34.4%
❤
107
33.1%
🔥
47
14.6%
😁
23
7.12%
🤯
8
2.48%
💔
5
1.55%
🤡
5
1.55%
😐
4
1.24%
🍓
2
0.619%
👏
2
0.619%
🙏
2
0.619%
❤🔥
1
0.31%
🏆
1
0.31%
😱
1
0.31%
🤨
1
0.31%
🥱
1
0.31%
🥴
1
0.31%
🫡
1
0.31%
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 18 of the 18 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 323reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 20 March 2026 to 21 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
5
across the posts below
Posts paid on
1
of 18 we hold a reading for · 6%
Most on one post
5
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @hasanxdev. 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 18 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 20 March 2026 to 21 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.
من در این چند وقت که خیلی از LLM ها استفاده کردم سهتا چیز فهمیدم که بعضی جاها شاید لازم باشه حواستون بهش باشه
این بیشتر یک راز بود برای خودم همیشه سطح آدمارو باهاش اندازه میگرفتم ببینم در استفاده از AI چقدر جونیورن یا سنیورن 😃
1. امضای یک LLM برای انگلیسی نوشتن em dash و استفاده زیاد از ایموجی هست
شاید بارها پیش اومده متن ایمیل های رسمی دریافت کردم یا توی اینترنت محتوایی دیدم که داخلش این کرکتر "—" وجود داره این ک…
دیگه لازم نیست کلاد کل ریپو رو بخونه
کدبیس مموری MCP (Codebase Memory MCP) یک سرور MCP متنبازه که کل کد پروژه رو به یک گراف دانشی تبدیل میکنه تا ایجنتهای کدنویس بهجای جستجوی فایلبهفایل، مستقیماً ساختار پروژه رو سؤال کنن. همهچیز بهصورت محلی اجرا میشه، مدل داخلی نداره و طبق بنچمارک پروژه تا حدود ۱۲۰ برابر مصرف توکن رو کم میکنه.
[ SOURCE X ] | [ Github ] 18.7K ⭐️
سلام بچها، اگر ایمیل دانشجویی دارید با IDE تقریبا جدیدی به نام ZED میتونید به مدلهای داخل عکس دسترسی داشته باشید.
من با ایمیل ac.ir تونستم اکانت بگیرم
جهت ادامه مسیر میتونید از سایت اصلی اقدام به اپلای کردن کنید.
https://zed.dev/education
داشتیم در مورد رزومه ها صحبت میکردیم، که حیفم اومد این رو توی چنل اصلی هم نگیم.
بنظرم از الان روی پروفایل هایی مثل dify, Replit, base44 کار کنید برای کسایی که فرانت و یا بک اند هستند. و برای افراد دیگه خوب ابزارهای دیگه.
کم کم اینها جزیی از رزومه های شما خواهند شد.
یعنی دیگه فقط کد نیست که من برم اکتیویتی گیتهابت رو ببینم. من میرم ببینم چطور با LLM ها کار میکنی. چه اپ هایی رو ساختی، چطور ایجنت هارو مدیریت میکنی. چطو…
حالا که Token Agent ها گرون شده چیکار کنیم؟
ابزاری هست به اسم RTK که مصرف توکن رو کاهش میده!!
خیلی ساده بگم RTK چیکار میکنه؟
هر Agent بدون استثنا از Command ها استفاده میکنه تا Context رو بفهمه اما Context که عموما شامل متن هست توکن های شمارو مصرف میکنه اگر Agent فایل رو نخونه که نمیتونه کار کنه اما تاحالا به این ایده فکر کردید که خروجی Command هارو Optimize کنید؟
بله RTK دقیقا همینه! یک نرم افزار که قبل هر کامند…
هماکنون Copilot با قیمتگذاری جدیدش قلبم رو شکست 💔
بعد از فقط یک روز استفاده از Copilot Pro Plus، تقریباً ۴۰٪ از سهمیهام مصرف شد.
دیگه به درد نمیخوره این دنیا...
شما چه اشتراکی دارید؟
حالا سؤال پیش میآید: چطور تست بنویسیم؟ باید در پست دیگری دربارهاش صحبت کنیم.
من قبلا یک ویدیو درباره تست نویسی داشتم که ساختار درستش رو گفته بودم ولی بیشتر باید درباره اینکه با AI چطور تست بنویسیم صحبت کنیم.
ویدیو کد نویسی | پلی لیست تست
دوست داشتم تا اینجا که اومدید چهار نکته روهم بهتون بگم:
نکته اول
بهعنوان یک contributor یادتان باشد باید این فرهنگ را داشته باشید که ساختار پروژهی کسی را بههم نزنید.
جدا از این…
من بهعنوان یک مهندس نرمافزار، در دنیای AIها چطور باید کد را ریویو کنم؟
راستش من اصلاً کد را به آن شکلِ مرسوم ریویو نمیکنم 🤠
و تقریباً از وقتی این فرهنگ را در خودم و بچههای تیمهایی که با آنها کار میکنم جا انداختهام، نزدیک به یک سال است تمام تغییراتی که با این قوانین پابلیش میشوند حتی یک incident کریتیکالهم نداشتهاند. هر وقت هم این قانون را شکستم، دقیقاً همانجا یک مشکل در سیستم ایجاد شده است!
سؤال جالبی ا…
باید درباره چندتا موضوع دیگه هم صحبت کنیم
۱. حالا که AI هست چطوری کد ریویو کنیم؟
۲. بعد از مرحله همیشه وایب کدینگ کردن، AI خوابمم بهم ریخته هفته ای ۲-۳ شب تا صبح بیدارم باید براتون بگم …
کلادفلرم آزاد شده دیگه همه هستین خوش برگشتید ❤️
❤19🍓2🔥1🫡1😱1
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @hasanxdev. 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.
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.
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 11 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Code With HSN” (@hasanxdev), 1,058 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/hasanxdev.
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.