Channel
@intheflux
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,720subscribers
-4 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001454672349 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @intheflux |
| Created | 6 April 2019 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (TGDataset) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/intheflux |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 16:43 | 1,720 | -3 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 20:12 | 1,723 | -1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 20:31 | 1,724 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 20:27 | 1,724 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 10 January 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 2 pagesof 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 28 June 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
54 reactions across 17 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 40.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 22 | 40.7% | |
| ❤ | 13 | 24.1% | |
| 👏 | 13 | 24.1% | |
| 🎉 | 3 | 5.56% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 3.70% | |
| 🤩 | 1 | 1.85% |
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 18 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 54reactions 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 10 January 2026 to 28 June 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.
想做老板的OPC不是好超级个体 有些人使用 AI Agent 的方式其实是一种“老板心态”的数字延伸，就是这件事不管我自己做有多简单，我都要让手下人去做。 对于张口闭口“超级个体”，要做“OPC”的人来说，不会觉得很讽刺吗？ 表面上追求极致的人效与自主，骨子里却是对“管理层级”本身的病态迷恋。所谓的“效率优先”往往沦为一种表演性劳动，其底层驱动力并非对产出的追求，而是对技术赋权下自我重要性的过度确认与虚荣满足。
👏4
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/163/6776893/a-toast-to-femmunism 文章提出，反法西斯主义阵营有些时候（至少在情绪和风格上）会变得很像法西斯主义——过分追求自己认定的真相和纯粹。但是在 Femmunism 具体怎么反法西斯这件事上，只依靠 cunts who know how to party 是不是太轻飘了？ 所谓“a place and time where fascists can’t touch us”在监控极权主义面前，是不是太天真了？
此外，兰老师似乎也没有考虑秦老师提出的“尺蠖效应”。就以现实而言，我想更多人会对后者更有共鸣。
👍3🤩1
原则上，我认同兰老师关于“警惕理论套用”和“尊重现实复杂”的立场，但在具体论证中，我还是感到两个令人感到别扭的地方： 第一，是兰老师似乎有将规范性价值地域化的倾向。不能简单将“普世价值”或某些通用经济逻辑划归为“西方专属”，这种偏狭与套用理论的偏狭一样会阻碍对美好未来的追求。 第二，是兰老师似乎总在“实然”与“应然”之间横跳。在书中，兰老师以“地方政府在招商引资中作用巨大”这一实然现象，推导其存在的合理性。然而，这种“巨大作用”恰恰反映的是其不合理之处：由于现行规则模糊、官僚壁垒高耸，企业唯有依赖地方政府的“内部身份”和“行政特权”才能绕过重重限制、获取模糊政策下的“绿灯”。这种依赖并非市场成熟的表现，而是制度高交易成本的体现。因此，我们不应因现状而美化干预，而应反思如何通过法治化、透明化的制度改革，降低对非正式行政协调的依赖，让市场在更清晰的规则下自主运行。
👍3😁1
Posted without readable text
❤2
想想挺有意思的，就在几年前，LLM在我这里首先跳出来的意思还是法律硕士~
👍1
https://honestprivacypolicies.org/ Honest Privacy Policies is an editorial project that reads the privacy policy of every company you tap "I agree" on and translates it into the version your most cynical friend would write. For every company you'll find a grade, a Privacy Label (front and back), eight plain-English answers to the things people actually want to know, marked-up excerpts of the worst clauses, the dark…
👍2
我觉得，对耿同学们最大的挑战在于：当他们面对足够的诱惑时，会如何选择。简单点说，如果有人直接给他1000万，让他取消发布，他会怎么做。 虽然他说，自己没想着做学术猎人，也没想着赚钱，之前也拒绝了别人的撤稿要求。但是问题不在于他有没有判断，而是在于这个判断有多经得住诱惑。 当价格足够高，当他可以依靠这一次的妥协更加长久地从事他热爱的科普事业，拒绝的理由还存在吗？
👏1
> 它要求观众沉浸于情感， 却拒绝观众理解历史。 https://movie.douban.com/review/17598761/ 不该用历史问题来指责这部电影，因为你能看到，显然就说明它已经选择避开了大象。但是又不该不说，不然就真的洗出一堆要“弘扬侨批文化”的人。 总之，现状就是，你不得不精神分裂。
❤3
https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-35/fiction-drama/the-feminist/ 这个故事厉害的地方在于，你几乎无法就其中所涉及的议题再做任何发言，因为作者已经在故事里预置了各种可能的回应。 这显然是一个关于理念与现实的故事，但是理念已经无法消化这个故事，而现实几乎可以从任何角度映射到这个故事里。 像是一根刺，咽不下去。
😁1
英國人洛克在描述華人苦力（coolies）時說：無需透過殘酷或暴虐手段，無需借助任何類似非洲羅德西亞 （Rhodesia）白人礦主對黑人所採取而惹來諸多麻煩的無情暴行， 也無需不斷暴打與咒罵，就能讓華人苦力意識到，他們的地位並非與歐洲人平等。他們是諸民族中的驢子，能夠在最惡劣的條件下從事最艱難的任務，忍受各種惡劣氣候和不公待遇，吃得少也喝得少，頑強堅韌又麻木不仁，不討人喜愛但極度有用。但不論在什麼情況下，都絕對不能信任他們或與他們為友。 而馬來人雖然也是爲了生活忙得團團轉，但卻因爲不願在殖民者手下做那些辛苦、無趣、單調的工作，而被視作是懶惰的。 這是殖民時期的觀察，但今日看來也還是如芒在背。 被我們視作美德的所謂勤勞，不過是順從地去做那些非人工作罷了。而不順從，則會被斥爲懶惰。
👍4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFul90BFjGc as long as we can do this and find it interesting.
❤4
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @intheflux. 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 — 547,886 of 1,189,255entries 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 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“In The Flux” (@intheflux), 1,720 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/intheflux.
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.