Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for 23:59

Channel

23:59

@almost_deadline

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry

8,851subscribers

+77 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001614318871
TypeChannel
Username@almost_deadline
CreatedBetween 1 December 2021 and 30 April 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live6 September 2026
Measurements held12
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 6 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/almost_deadline

Growth

8,7738,8518,8127 August 2026 — 8,774 subscribers7 August 2026 — 8,774 subscribers8 August 2026 — 8,773 subscribers11 August 2026 — 8,778 subscribers15 August 2026 — 8,801 subscribers17 August 2026 — 8,817 subscribers20 August 2026 — 8,824 subscribers24 August 2026 — 8,820 subscribers27 August 2026 — 8,808 subscribers30 August 2026 — 8,812 subscribers2 September 2026 — 8,820 subscribers6 September 2026 — 8,851 subscribers7 August 20266 September 2026
12 measurements spanning 30 days, net +77. 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 8,761–8,863 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
6 Sept 2026, 08:408,851+31
2 Sept 2026, 08:128,820+8
30 Aug 2026, 04:478,812+4
27 Aug 2026, 12:138,808-12
24 Aug 2026, 20:288,820-4
20 Aug 2026, 21:138,824+7
17 Aug 2026, 19:138,817+16
15 Aug 2026, 02:088,801+23
11 Aug 2026, 15:088,778+5
8 Aug 2026, 05:218,773-1
7 Aug 2026, 11:308,774no change
7 Aug 2026, 11:218,774first reading

Engagement

35 posts held, back to 27 June 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 30 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
17.9%
avg views ÷ 8,851 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,580
19 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.10%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
19
of 35 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
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 27 August 2026
Posts held35 (27 June 202627 August 2026)
Views total30,052
Reactions total632
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken28 Aug 2026, 16:12 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

1,269 reactions across 35 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 64.1% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
81464.1%
🔥26120.6%
👍735.75%
💘352.76%
🤔231.81%
❤‍🔥201.58%
👏201.58%
😍50.394%
40.315%
💔40.315%
💋30.236%
👎20.158%
🤩20.158%
😁10.079%
🙏10.079%
🫡10.079%

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 35 of the 35 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 1,269 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 35 most recent posts we hold, published 27 June 2026 to 27 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.

Recent posts

27 Aug 2026, 14:59 UTC761 views27 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Разбираем кейсы Дисклеймер: работа с поведением — всегда вероятностная история. Можно подготовить все правильно, но не сделать желаемое. Можно допустить много ошибок, но всё равно привычку закрепить. Ошибками я называю только то, что у большинства людей снизит вероятность изменения поведения. 1. N и чтение Ошибки: - нет точного момента запуска привычки (нет спускового крючка, нет напоминания) - 30 минут могут оказ

27

27 Aug 2026, 10:59 UTC≈1,070 views23 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Posted without readable text

🤔137👍3

27 Aug 2026, 03:59 UTC≈1,220 views20 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Posted without readable text

10🤔6👍4

27 Aug 2026, 02:29 UTC≈1,230 views22 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Сегодня в 19:00 (по Москве) у нас воркшоп на тему привычек. Разложим действие в цепочку: от предпосылок (я не люблю слово «триггер»), через мысли и эмоции в процессе — к краткосрочным и долгосрочным последствиям. Конечно, за 3 часа воркшопа новую привычку никто не сформирует и от старой не избавится. Зато я могу гарантировать: - понимание, почему мешающая привычка никуда не уходит - подходящие формулировки для новых

❤‍🔥9😍5👍42👎1💋1

25 Aug 2026, 16:59 UTC≈1,370 views52 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Эксперимент близится к концу В этом посте я напомню, что происходило ранее, расскажу о том, почему отменился четвертый воркшоп, и приглашу на пятый. === Что было в предыдущих сериях? В мае я явно сформулировала проблему, которую вижу вокруг своих YouTube-видео. Меня очень благодарят за практические рекомендации, практики и алгоритмы почти в каждом видео, но мало кто выделяет время на их выполнение. Я придумала и

36❤‍🔥84👍3💋1

21 Aug 2026, 20:59 UTC≈1,950 views18 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Что будем делать на воркшопе «Антисписок дел»? Этот воркшоп для тех, кто в целом понимает, чего хочет, что-то (иногда много) делает для своих целей, но в то же время параллельно мешает собственному прогрессу. Например: - откладывает деньги и ведет бюджет, но пару раз в неделю «вознаграждает» себя походами в ресторан - планирует рабочую неделю, но снова и снова соглашается на чужие «срочные» просьбы - старается нала

🔥12💘41💋1

20 Aug 2026, 20:59 UTC≈1,920 views63 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Как прошел третий воркшоп? Во-первых, был момент для меня самой сложный. За ночь до воркшопа, то есть меньше чем за 24 часа, было куплено всего одно место. И вечером я по этому поводу начала переживать. Стала задумываться о желании прервать этот эксперимент, остановить воркшопы, раз уж они «не работают». Расшифровывать на эмоциях, что значит «не работают», не стала. С этими мыслями легла спать. К утру было уже три

46🔥15👎1💘1

19 Aug 2026, 09:29 UTC≈1,980 views23 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Что будем делать сегодня на воркшопе «Что для меня важно?» Если коротко — выбирать ценности. Теорию я уже рассказывала в отдельном видео (одно из моих любимых, кстати). Если подробнее, я приготовила три группы инструментов. 1. Посмотрим в прошлое Проанализируем реальные выборы, которые вы уже совершали: на что тратили ограниченные ресурсы (время, силы и деньги), ради чего соглашались на дискомфорт, что защищали, ч

21💘2

18 Aug 2026, 20:59 UTC≈1,900 views38 reactionsread 28 August 2026

Вернемся к дилемме выше. За обоими вариантами ответа могут лежать вполне привлекательные ценности. Что могло подтолкнуть к выбору «да, взял_а бы»? - лояльность: для меня важно быть на стороне близкого человека, особенно когда ему трудно - забота: я хочу помочь человеку, для которого эта возможность сейчас особенно важна - милосердие: я не хочу, чтобы прошлые ошибки навсегда определяли отношение к человеку - смелост

31👍6💘1

18 Aug 2026, 18:59 UTC≈1,550 views11 reactionsread 28 August 2026
Poll

Что бы вы ответили на вопрос ««Ты бы сам_а взял_а его на работу?»

  1. Да, взял_а бы57%
  2. Нет, не взял_а бы43%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

11

Showing the 12 most recent of 35 posts we hold for @almost_deadline. 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.

Posts edited after publishing

@almost_deadline edited 1 post after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.

An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.

First edit seen
18 August 2026
Most recent edit
18 August 2026

Polls

The 4 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

18 Aug 2026, 18:59 UTCAnonymous Poll272 voters

Что бы вы ответили на вопрос ««Ты бы сам_а взял_а его на работу?»

  1. Да, взял_а бы57%
  2. Нет, не взял_а бы43%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

16 Aug 2026, 18:59 UTCAnonymous Poll427 voters

О чём рассказать?

  1. Как я организовала сам процесс работы над книгой52%
  2. К какой структуре я пришла32%
  3. Чем книга в итоге будет принципиально отличаться от курса37%
  4. Письмо потенциальному читателю22%
  5. Что нового я поняла, пока пишу книгу54%
  6. Как я справляюсь с давлением дедлайна53%
  7. Мне не интересно3%

The shares total 253%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.

8 Aug 2026, 17:59 UTCAnonymous Poll117 voters

Время для воркшопов (по мск)

  1. 13.08 (чт) 15:0015%
  2. 13.08 (чт) 19:0026%
  3. 19.08 (ср) 19:0026%
  4. 20.08 (чт) 15:0016%
  5. 20.08 (чт) 19:0023%
  6. 22.08 (сб) 15:0026%
  7. 27.08 (чт) 15:0018%
  8. 27.08 (чт) 19:0026%
  9. Не собираюсь приходить32%
  10. Хотел(а) бы, но эти временные слоты мне не подходят3%

The shares total 211%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.

31 Jul 2026, 04:59 UTCAnonymous Poll381 voters

Темы для воркшопов

  1. Успеть до конца лета30%
  2. Привычки40%
  3. Что для меня важно?49%
  4. Что выбрать?31%
  5. Уйти или остаться?21%
  6. Импульсивность34%
  7. Антисписок дел43%

The shares total 248%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 35 most recent posts we hold, published 27 June 2026 to 27 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

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 2 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 6 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“23:59” (@almost_deadline), 8,851 subscribers as measured 6 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/almost_deadline.

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.