Понятие работы меняется — и в будущем нас ждут серьезные трансформации и технологические сдвиги в этой области. Вместе мы исследуем все эти изменения. А помогает нам в этом любознательность, инновации и hrtech.
(рекламу не размещаем)
Автор: @evgvolnov
Created
4 May 2021 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel)
8 measurements spanning 6 days, net -19. 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 20,705–20,737 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 06:08
20,714
-1
11 Aug 2026, 06:01
20,715
+6
10 Aug 2026, 09:25
20,709
-14
9 Aug 2026, 05:52
20,723
-4
8 Aug 2026, 08:13
20,727
-5
7 Aug 2026, 05:38
20,732
-1
6 Aug 2026, 02:06
20,733
no change
5 Aug 2026, 22:01
20,733
first reading
Engagement
18 posts held, back to 26 July 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 17 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
8.44%
avg views ÷ 20,714 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,750
18 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.46%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
18
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 11 August 2026
Posts held
18 (26 July 2026 – 11 August 2026)
Views total
31,466
Reactions total
458
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 23:19 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
Photos
≈2,250
Videos
≈103
Links
≈1,810
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 12 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
Video runtime
10m 32s
Average length
10m 32s
Measured directly from 1 video 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
458 reactions across 18 posts, in 19 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 33.6% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
154
33.6%
🔥
148
32.3%
👍
49
10.7%
❤🔥
38
8.30%
💯
17
3.71%
🙈
17
3.71%
👏
8
1.75%
🍾
7
1.53%
🤔
5
1.09%
⚡
3
0.655%
😁
2
0.437%
🤮
2
0.437%
🦄
2
0.437%
👎
1
0.218%
😈
1
0.218%
🤡
1
0.218%
🤣
1
0.218%
🤯
1
0.218%
🥴
1
0.218%
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 458reactions 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 26 July 2026 to 11 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.
Наткнулся сейчас в сабстеке на пост с очередными рассуждениями на тему, что мы переоцениваем риски скорой автоматизации и вытеснения человека с рынка труда. Потому что работа устроена сложнее и хитрее, чем нам кажется.
Сам текст скучный. А вот картинка оттуда мне очень понравилась.
Revelio Labs запустили свой AI Labor Market Tracker. И в отличии от других подобных трекеров, собранных на клоде, — с гораздо более качественными данными и аналитикой.
Если попробовать сделать обобщенный вывод по их инсайтам, то ситуация выглядит примерно так...
AI пока не вызывает массового сокращения занятости. Но меняет структурные элементы рынка труда: сокращает точки входа, перестраивает содержание некоторых п…
Джейми Тиван (Chief Scientist в Microsoft) пару дней назад выложила свои семь предсказаний про будущее работы. Они в первую очередь про knowledge work. Но в любом случае, звучит это всё очень оригинально и свежо.
1. Reading will become asking. Writing will become answering.
Questions will become the bridge that connects knowledge seekers and knowledge creators.
Я это читаю как ещё одно напоминание, что управление з…
На видео десятиминутный отрывок из недавнего большого интервью Илона Маска The Economist. Отрывок, в котором он рассказывает, что через 5 лет AI будет умнее всех людей и научится решать любые проблемы — и начнётся эпоха изобилия.
Но мы знаем, что про эпоху изобилия фантазировать умеет не только Илон Маск. Поэтому собрал нам все заметные высказывания известных больших людей про будущее AI. За июль. Это чтобы мы не от…
Друзья, почти ровно через 2 месяца случится самое стильное и визионерское мероприятие в индустрии.
Мы очень стараемся, чтобы это было ещё круче чем в прошлом году.
Скоро начну рассказывать детали: спикеры, темы, сюрпризы. Но уже можно регистрироваться. Тем более до 10 августа специальная цена для early birds.
→ headconf.ru
Зачем СЕО так много обещают?
Очень интересная статья из Strategic Management Journal. Авторы проанализировали 69 000 транскриптов квартальных отчетов компаний из S&P 1500 за 2010–2022 годы и выделили 74 000 конкретных обещаний от СЕО.
Во-первых, они определили 6 критериев, отличающих обещания от обычных прогнозов или планов:
1. Публичность: обещания звучат на открытых площадках (звонках с инвесторами, презентациях…
История HRtech
У hrexaminer.com увидел пост про историю HRtech. Насчёт текста не уверен — может быть скучновато (но для расширения кругозора почитать можно). А вот табличка интересная.
→ https://www.hrexaminer.com/p/the-history-of-hrtech
Что нам поможет процветать в следующем десятилетии
И ещё один амбициозный манифест — огроменный текст на Noema про необходимость институционального преобразования общества для адаптации к AI-революции.
Сделал нам очень короткий конспект...
Мы утверждаем, что процветание человечества в ближайшие десятилетия зависит от решения ряда глобальных социо-технологических задач: масштабных, скоординированных инвестиций в че…
Следующие 250 лет Америки
Очень хочу показать вам этот текст.
Ровно месяц назад a16z опубликовали своё видение следующих 250 лет американского процветания и триумфа.
Ценностно я конечно совсем не разделяю их технопсихопатическую риторику. Но с точки зрения смелости и амбиций — они уникальные ребята. Не могу себе представить никакой другой фонд такого уровня, кто пишет подобные вещи.
Вот вам самые звонкие (перевед…
К Бобу Стернфелсу вопросы у нас есть. Но к тем, кто делает McKinsey Insights — вопросов нет. Они большие молодцы. Поэтому собрал нам дайджест самых их полезных и интересных текстов за июль:
1. Five principles for designing brain-powered organizations
С одной стороны, AI вроде бы забирает на себя рутину и простые задачи, с другой — оставляя сотрудникам больше сложных проблем и работы с неопределённостью. То есть пов…
В продолжение предыдущего поста. И темы AI Value Gap. Тут вот люди сделали целый сайт про это — thevaluegap.io
🔥6❤3
Signed Evgeniy Volnov
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @thefutureofwork. 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
Citation-graph rank — 9,022 of 1,151,006entries 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 15 registered channels — 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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“The Future Of Work” (@thefutureofwork), 20,714 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/thefutureofwork.
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.