Channel
@readjjb
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
45subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 12 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002085974742 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @readjjb |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 12 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/readjjb |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 06:33 | 45 | no change |
| 12 Aug 2026, 13:47 | 45 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 12 February 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 1 pageof 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 10 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (12 February 2025 – 10 August 2026) |
| Views total | 289 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 13:47 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.
16 reactions across 6 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 68.8% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 11 | 68.8% | |
| 😢 | 3 | 18.8% | |
| 👏 | 2 | 12.5% |
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 6 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 16reactions 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 12 February 2025 to 10 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.
文明在倒退，還是我們終於卸下了偽裝？ 這幾年，很多人心裡都有一種揮之不去的荒謬感：世界好像越變越陌生，甚至越變越野蠻。 按理說，2020年代的科技已經發達得超乎想像，AI、太空科技日新月異。但回看現實，國際間在打最原始的陣地戰，網絡上充斥著最惡毒的公審與非黑即白的撕裂，連原本講求體面的政治人物，也開始用最粗俗的語言去煽動群眾。這種巨大的反差，讓人不禁懷疑：我們是不是正在經歷一場集體的「文明倒退」？ 但如果我們把這層社會的皮肉切開，看進骨子裡，或許這根本不是倒退，而是「文明」這件外衣在巨大的壓力下，終於被扯爛了。 我們過去幾十年享受的體面、包容與理性，其實是有條件的。那是建立在冷戰後經濟全球化、物質極度充裕、且沒有大型天災人禍的黃金泡泡裡。當大家都有飯吃、前途一片光明時，要假裝成一個「文明人」並不難——我們可以大談普世價值，對異見者展現包容。 然而，過去這五年，這層精緻的糖衣被徹底剥落。世紀疫情、通脹肆虐、地緣政治失控，…
房地產交易本質上是一種政商合作關係。 發展商向政府取得土地，實際上是取得建築權。 買家則購買發展商所建造的樓宇單位以及政府授予的租地權。 從嚴格意義上講，發展商充當中間商，負責建造單位並將其出售給消費者，從而獲得建築成本的利潤。 買家則獲得單位的使用權以及地方政府的地契租賃權。 因此，您所購買的樓宇或房屋並非完全屬於您所有，而是九成以上由政府和發展商共同創造的第三方結構資產。 在某種程度上，地契完約後，政府有權不續約您的單位，而政府在這種情況下完全沒有賠償的義務。 由此可見，購買房地產的意義何在？
【修行的初衷，是救渡還是收割？】 歷史上，民間的茅山道士或手藝人所承擔的使命，並非僅僅為了個人利益。在物質匱乏的年代，他們收取的費用旨在維持生計，以確保這份志業得以延續。這種「等價交換」模式基於生存的必要性，而非追求財富的動機，其核心價值在於解決他人的困境。 相較之下，當代的「靈性產業」卻出現了將一道符或一瓶能量水標價數萬、甚至百萬的現象。這已不再是基於生存的等價交換，而是一種利用他人恐懼與迷惘進行的商業行為。 我們必須深刻反思：「幫助他人」若缺乏純粹的初衷，是否仍能被視為真正的幫助？ 若帶有特定目的去行事，則僅僅是純粹的「商業交易」。 如同房屋修繕的收費是基於分工合作，但涉及靈性與因果的事務，其背後的意義遠超金錢的價值。 當一個人選擇將救贖變質為暴利交易時，他所承擔的因果責任將會遠超其所獲得的經濟利益。 在這個物質過剩但精神匱乏的時代，我們更應看清：真正的慈悲是布施，而非一場充滿算計的商業交易。 #因果 #反…
生活常被誤解為一連串日常安排：起床、工作、進食、休息，循環往復，彷彿只要能夠維持運轉，便算把人生交代。然而，若細看便會發現，生活其實同時包含兩條軌道：一條名為生存，另一條名為活著。 生存是底線，是在現實壓力下維持秩序的能力；它要求人計算、忍耐、妥協，學會把情緒收起，把願望押後，把自己安放在「可行」而非「想要」的位置。生存讓人不致崩塌，卻也容易在不知不覺間，把人生縮窄成一張清單：完成了便心安，延誤了便自責。久而久之，我們甚至會把「撐得住」誤認為「過得好」。 活著則是另一種尺度。它不一定外顯，也不必然轟烈，而是人仍能對世界保持感受與回應：仍會被一束光觸動，仍願意為一句真誠停下腳步，仍知道自己在意什麼、害怕什麼、渴望什麼。活著使人不只把時間消耗掉，而是讓時間有了重量；不只在日子裡前進，更在日子裡成為自己。 真正值得反思的是：我們往往把大量心力用於生存，卻把活著交給「以後」——等忙完這段、等穩定下來、等不那麼累。然而「以後」並不總…
嚴格來說，愛也是一種罪 愛，被普遍視為人類最純粹與美好的情感，然而，若從另一個角度審視，愛卻也可能是種罪——一種對己和他人帶來傷害與矛盾的罪行。 首先，愛在盲目中滋生罪惡。人們往往因愛失去理智，做出違背道德甚至法律的行為。 無論是為了愛人而欺騙、背叛他人，還是因愛生妒而導致暴力和報復，愛成了行動上的罪魁禍首。 這種盲目的愛，讓人失去判斷力，將美好的情感扭曲成破壞與傷害的源頭。 其次，愛是一種自私的罪。 愛雖然表面上是付出與關懷，但在本質上常隱含佔有慾與控制慾。人們愛一個人，不過是想滿足自己的情感需求，甚至以愛為名，剝奪對方的自由。 這種以愛為藉口的控制，成為對他人權利的侵犯，是內心深處的罪惡。 再者，愛也可能是犧牲的罪。 為了愛，人們常常忽視自身的底線，放棄自我，甚至成為痛苦和折磨的受害者。 這種自我毀滅的愛，既是一種自欺也是一種對自身生命的背叛，宛如一種無形的罪行，在靈魂深處留下傷痕。 最後，愛是一種讓人…
嚴格來說，愛是一種武器 愛，這個詞彙在人類的情感世界中佔據著極其重要的位置。 它既是溫暖的源泉，也是力量的象徵。然而，如果我們以嚴格的角度來審視，會發現愛不僅僅是柔情蜜意，更像是一種無形而強大的「武器」，在人與人之間的互動中，起著至關重要的作用。 首先，愛作為武器，體現於其極強的影響力。 愛能改變一個人的心態與行為，它有能力令原本冷漠無情的人變得溫柔善良，也能促使人們付出超出常理的努力和犧牲。在這樣的過程中，愛成為改造他人和自身的利器。 歷史上無數的領袖和改革者正是因為對某種「愛」的執著，例如對國家、信仰或人民的愛，才得以激發出強大的動員力，推動社會變革。 由此可見，愛並非單純的情感表達，而是一種能夠激發巨大能量和行動的武器。 其次，愛在親密關係中往往成為雙刃劍。 愛讓人心甘情願地付出，但同時也能成為控制和操縱的工具。當愛被濫用或誤用，它可能引發嫉妒、佔有慾，甚至變成情感勒索的手段。 這種時候，愛的力量轉化為精…
在這座曾經閃耀的城市天空下，我們的無奈像潮水般席捲而來，沉重得幾乎窒息。每天看著周遭的人們步履維艱，明明拼盡全力，卻依然被那看不見的枷鎖牢牢禁錮。上一代留下的「繁榮」，如今卻變成我們的牢籠與枷鎖，每一步努力都像是在築起更高的牆。這不是我們想要的生活，卻又無力改變現狀，仿佛只能不停地在絕望中循環。 我們眼見樓價如天價般將夢想封鎖，眼見父母長夜難眠的背影，卻深知再多的嘗試都只是給既得利益者添磚加瓦。每一次加班、每一分積蓄都被物價蠶食殆盡，生活的喘息空間越來越小，卻不得不咬牙堅持。心底的那份無力感，像重石壓在胸口，讓人透不過氣。 環境的惡化，如同上一代所積累的罪業，將我們困在毒霧中，不僅奪走了健康，更偷走了對未來的憧憬。看著颱風一浪接一浪，洪水將熟悉的街道淹沒，我們明白這場災難不會停歇，而我們的抗爭似乎是個無聲的哭泣。 教育像一道枷鎖，緊緊束縛著年輕人的思維與心靈。那原本應該是啟蒙的殿堂，如今只剩下壓迫與監控。心底的無奈讓人想大…
每一位出現在你身邊的人其實都是一位陌生人 嚴格來說，親人亦是陌生人 只不過每天有關係連結而維持,當連結消失時，他亦只是一位陌生人。 #以上問題可以給予大家作思考 #為生活中的平淡加上一點味道 #歡迎轉發同時都可以帶上本台
😢3
Posted without readable text
過去的事件，無論多麼痛苦，在5年、10年或20年後都會變得微不足道——就像事後的沙粒一樣。 堅持舊錯誤是一種自我強加的枷鎖，完全不值得；它阻礙了你前進。 歷史不是為了自我鞭打，而是為了學習：承認錯誤，修復當前問題，並防止將來重演。 分享這些經驗將它們變成寶貴的課程——幫助他人躲避同樣的陷阱，借用你的解決問題的方法，甚至創新新的方法。 歸根結底，這是關於釋放過去，傳遞火炬，擁抱成長來照亮前進的道路。 #歡迎轉發同時都可以帶上本台 #為生活中的平淡加上一點味道 #以上問題可以給予大家作思考
👏2
為什麼基督教一直沒有被質疑？（純討論） 據說耶穌曾經為世人釘上十字架,同一時間亦用了幾天就復活了 但耶穌當時釘的十字架是為了當時的世人赦免他們的罪而做的事情,並非為現代的人所犯下的錯誤而做 為什麼耶穌沒有每一年都來到世界為世人的罪釘一次十字架再復活🥹 復活節的由來不是復活的日子出現嗎？😳 耶穌應該每一年都找一個處女,在處女中出身(不過我相信他應該沒可能再發生這個事情🤣） #以上問題可以給予大家作思考 #為生活中的平淡加上一點味道 #歡迎轉發同時都可以帶上本台 連結
不能向上爬向下走都是一個選擇 為什麼在人類社會上必須要向上？ 在社會向上爬是不是一定會獲得相對或同等回報？ 向上跟向下走風險相同時為什麼還要向上? 為什麼一定要進步才是生存基本的道理? 人生不是自主的嗎?為什麼要由他人擺佈你的生活? 每個人不是獨立的個體嗎? #以上問題可以給予大家作思考 #歡迎轉發同時都可以帶上本台連結 #為生活中的平淡加上一點味道
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @readjjb. 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 — 69,419 of 1,548,671entries 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 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“毒書人” (@readjjb), 45 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/readjjb.
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.