Channel
@uveco
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
689subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001002491147 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @uveco |
| Created | Between 1 September 2015 and 31 December 2015— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 7 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 7 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/uveco |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Aug 2026, 11:40 | 689 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 21:16 | 689 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 27 December 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 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (27 December 2025 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 1,150 |
| Reactions total | 59 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 21:16 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.
154 reactions across 18 posts, in 1 kind.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 154 | 100.0% |
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 154reactions 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 27 December 2025 to 6 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.
کتاب را نمیشناسم ولی جملهاش را بسیار دوست داشتم. آدمها را برای مشکلاتشان، که علتش را هم نمیدانیم، قضاوت نکنیم. اگر میتوانیم، کمک کنیم، اگر نمیتوانیم کمک کنیم، بپذیریم، و اگر این را هم نمیتوانیم، بگذریم. @uveco
👍12
#کتاب آریاناقلم، کتاب خوب کم ندارد، اما با احترام به پدیدآورندگانِ کتابهای دیگر، این یکی چیزی دیگر است. این یک کتابِ زندگی است. اگر این کتاب را دیر بخوانی، دیر میفهمی که با خودت و اطرافیانت چه کردهای. من این کتاب را به همه توصیه میکنم، یکی از توصیههای تکراری من در عمدهی جلساتی است که در خدمتِ عزیزان هستم. خیلی خوب است، خیلی گفتگوی خانم برنه براون با خانم سوزان دیوید و روایت ایشان از سرگذشت خود را اگر بشنوید،…
👍16
خانم برنه براون، در این اپیزود از پادکستِ بسیار ارزشمندش از یک تجربه خوبِ رهبری سازمان میگه که پیشنهاد میکنم بشنوید و الگوی متناسب بردارید. اما، اما، نکتهاش برای من این بود که انجام شدنِ کارهای سخت باید بر اساس یک سیستم باشه نه فقط افرادِ احتمالا توانمند. گاهی اوقات سیستمها و فرایندهای درست، لازم هستند نه "سوپرمن" ها سازمانهایی که شما میشناسید چقدر بر سوپرمنها تکیه دارند؟ اینهم لینک در لینکدین https://www.l…
👍9
گاهی وقتها من و شما چیزی را "دوست داریم" داشته باشیم که واقعا "نمیخواهیم" داشته باشیم. دنبالِ متهمی هستیم که "او" نمیگذارد به آنمطلوب برسیم. هر راهی هم نشان میدهند تا به آنجا برسیم، مانعی برایش میتراشیم که دروغ نیست، ولی از اول میدانستیم که وجود دارد. اینجور وقتها باید رفت و گوشهای نشست و تماشا کرد... شما هم این وضعیت را تجربه کردهاید؟ @uveco
👍8
این ویدئوی بسیار کوتاهِ آقای لنچیونی در مورد هوش مصنوعی و مواجهه با آن را خیلی دوست داشتم و فکر کردم شاید برای شما هم جالب باشه اگر پسندیدید، برای دوستانتون هم بفرستید @uveco
👍14
در دنیایی که هوش مصنوعی در انواع و اقسامِ مدلها و روشها، بر آن حاکم است و "هر" کاری را با بالاترین سطحِ عملکرد انجام میدهد، چه کسی مسئولیتِ اینکه آیا کارِ درست انجام میشود؟ یا فقط کاری است که به سرعت و با عملکرد بسیار بالا، انجام میشود؟ ما برای مدیریتِ دنیای هوش مصنوعی و ایجنتها آماده ایم؟ یا از شُتُر به سوی موتور میرویم؟ تجربه و نظر شما چیست؟ @uveco
👍2
این ویدئو فرمایش بسیار خوبی از آقای دکتر سلطانی است. ایشان متخصص غدد هستند و سالهاست در حوزه تفکر انتقادی تحقیق و تدریس میکنند. این چند دقیقه را ببینید/بشنوید و پیشنهاد میکنم صفحهی ایشان را از دست ندهید. https://www.instagram.com/drakbarsoltani?igsh=MW8wNnFwdXU5cTg1 @uveco
👍13
نسخه الکترونیکی کتاب را هم تقدیم میکنم که اگر پسندیدید، مطالعه کنید و به دوستانتان پیشنهاد بفرمایید.
👍7
کتابِ Humble Inquiry یکی از بهترین کتابها برای فهمِ تفاوت شیوههای رفتاری در تعامل است. اعتبار آقای Edgar Schein قوتِ پیشنهاد مطالعهی این کتاب را تقویت میکند. داستان این است که دانای کل باشیم یا کمک کنیم آدمها خودشان بهتر بفهمند؟ این خلاصه را گوش کنید ولی خواندن کتاب، داستانی دیگر است. ترجمهای از این کتاب هم هست به نامِ :پرسشگریِ متواضعانه" که کمیاب است و کیفیتی متوسط دارد. نسخه الکترونیکی کتاب (به زبان انگلیس…
👍17
اگر ایدهی استارتاپی دارین، اگر فکر میکنید برای مشکلی، راه حلی دارین، خلاصه اگر میخواید کاری بکنید ولی فکر میکنید همهی کارها قبلا شده و چیزی برای شما نمونده، حتی اگر هیچکدوم از اینها نیستید، ولی دوست دارید یک مطلب خوب بخونید، پیشنهاد میکنم این نوشته رو در نوبت خوندن بگذارید. روان و دلنشین بود برای من، شاید شما هم خوشتون بیاد مخلص
👍9
File, posted without a caption
📌 وقتی همه از هوش مصنوعی استفاده میکنند، شرکتها ممکن است مهارتهای حیاتی خود را از دست بدهند این مقاله از BCG به یک خطر مهم در استفاده گسترده از هوش مصنوعی مولد اشاره میکند: هوش مصنوعی فقط کارها را سریعتر نمیکند؛ در بعضی موارد، بخشی از فکر کردن انسان را جایگزین میکند. نویسندگان مقاله این پدیده را «کاهش مهارت توزیعشده» مینامند؛ یعنی وقتی نه فقط یک فرد، بلکه تعداد زیادی از کارکنان در یک سازمان، بهتدریج مهارت…
👍10
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @uveco. 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 — 971,658 of 1,160,990entries 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.
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.
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 7 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“نقش رفتار” (@uveco), 689 subscribers as measured 7 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/uveco.
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.