en
Feedback
πŸ’Š ℝ𝕖𝕕.β„™π•šπ•π•.β„™π•™π•’π•£π•žπ•’π•”π•šπ•€π•₯ πŸ’Š

πŸ’Š ℝ𝕖𝕕.β„™π•šπ•π•.β„™π•™π•’π•£π•žπ•’π•”π•šπ•€π•₯ πŸ’Š

Open in Telegram

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Eyes wide open - ready to fill others prescription πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ https://t.me/RPPharmacistOfficial -Channel

Show more

πŸ“ˆ Analytical overview of Telegram channel πŸ’Š ℝ𝕖𝕕.β„™π•šπ•π•.β„™π•™π•’π•£π•žπ•’π•”π•šπ•€π•₯ πŸ’Š

Channel πŸ’Š ℝ𝕖𝕕.β„™π•šπ•π•.β„™π•™π•’π•£π•žπ•’π•”π•šπ•€π•₯ πŸ’Š (@rppharmacistofficial) in the English language segment is an active participant. Currently, the community unites 55 100 subscribers, ranking 1 112 in the Politics category and 524 in the USA region.

πŸ“Š Audience metrics and dynamics

Since its creation on Π½Π΅Π²Ρ–Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΎ, the project has demonstrated rapid growth, gathering an audience of 55 100 subscribers.

According to the latest data from 16 June, 2026, the channel demonstrates stable activity. Although there has been a change in the number of participants by -1 092 over the last 30 days and by -30 over the last 24 hours, overall reach remains high.

  • Verification status: Not verified
  • Engagement rate (ER): The average audience engagement rate is 19.93%. Within the first 24 hours after publication, content typically collects 6.33% reactions from the total number of subscribers.
  • Post reach: On average, each post receives 10 988 views. Within the first day, a publication typically gains 3 493 views.
  • Reactions and interaction: The audience actively supports content: the average number of reactions per post is 0.
  • Thematic interests: Content is focused on key topics such as brown, u.s, vine, argument, christmas.

πŸ“ Description and content policy

The author describes the resource as a platform for expressing subjective opinions:
β€œπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Eyes wide open - ready to fill others prescription πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ https://t.me/RPPharmacistOfficial -Channel”

Thanks to the high frequency of updates (latest data received on 17 June, 2026), the channel maintains relevance and a high level of publication reach. Analytics show that the audience actively interacts with content, making it an important point of influence in the Politics category.

55 100
Subscribers
-3024 hours
-2697 days
-1 09230 days
Attracting Subscribers
June '26
June '26
+2
in 10 channels
May '26
+3
in 29 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+1
in 5 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+1
in 35 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+10
in 16 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+5
in 9 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+10
in 22 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+27
in 64 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+105
in 77 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+182
in 97 channels
Get PRO
August '25
+228
in 141 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+217
in 175 channels
Get PRO
June '25
+199
in 137 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+249
in 128 channels
Get PRO
April '25
+345
in 188 channels
Get PRO
March '25
+506
in 201 channels
Get PRO
February '25
+446
in 143 channels
Get PRO
January '25
+689
in 247 channels
Get PRO
December '24
+333
in 114 channels
Get PRO
November '24
+596
in 200 channels
Get PRO
October '24
+520
in 259 channels
Get PRO
September '24
+643
in 231 channels
Get PRO
August '24
+335
in 92 channels
Get PRO
July '24
+318
in 165 channels
Get PRO
June '24
+382
in 184 channels
Get PRO
May '24
+299
in 99 channels
Get PRO
April '24
+258
in 114 channels
Get PRO
March '24
+218
in 79 channels
Get PRO
February '24
+334
in 61 channels
Get PRO
January '24
+330
in 158 channels
Get PRO
December '23
+419
in 165 channels
Get PRO
November '23
+370
in 116 channels
Get PRO
October '23
+276
in 91 channels
Get PRO
September '23
+89
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '23
+177
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '23
+224
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '23
+132
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '23
+137
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '23
+439
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '23
+212
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '23
+580
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '23
+2 397
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '22
+1 574
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '22
+1 405
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '22
+2 278
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '22
+791
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '22
+2 742
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '22
+5 221
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '22
+2 756
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '22
+3 671
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '22
+2 934
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '22
+8 292
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '22
+1 870
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '22
+2 836
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '21
+2 088
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '21
+3 878
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '21
+6 120
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '21
+6 496
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '21
+8 269
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '21
+9 243
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '21
+3 889
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '21
+4 798
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '21
+2 440
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '21
+8 136
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '21
+7 294
in 0 channels
Date
Subscriber Growth
Mentions
Channels
17 June0
16 June0
15 June0
14 June0
13 June0
12 June0
11 June0
10 June0
09 June0
08 June0
07 June0
06 June+1
05 June0
04 June0
03 June0
02 June0
01 June+1
Channel Posts
Repost from LauraAboli
Take a good look at this map. According to the figures shown, more than 3,000 new data centers are planned or already under c
Take a good look at this map. According to the figures shown, more than 3,000 new data centers are planned or already under construction around the world. Together, they represent an announced power demand of around 190 gigawatts, consuming up to 1,500 terawatt hours of electricity per year. To put that into perspective, that is roughly the equivalent of five United Kingdoms worth of electricity consumption. The same projections estimate water consumption in excess of 15 billion litres per year. For decades we have been told that humanity must dramatically reduce its energy consumption. We were told that the planet could not sustain economic growth. We were told that we must accept carbon taxes, restrictions, smart meters, energy rationing, expensive green policies and a lower standard of living in order to save the Earth. We were told that there were limits to growth. The infamous Club of Rome built an entire worldview around the idea that population, industrial output, resource consumption and economic development had to be constrained because the planet simply could not cope. Yet suddenly, when the objective is building the infrastructure required for artificial intelligence, biometric surveillance, digital identity systems, central bank digital currencies, predictive behavioural modelling and an increasingly automated technocratic society, those limits seem to have vanished. Apparently there are no limits to growth when the growth serves the construction of the digital grid itself. Suddenly nobody is asking whether the planet can sustain thousands of power hungry data centers. Nobody is suggesting AI training should be restricted to reduce carbon emissions. Nobody is demanding that these projects be halted because of their enormous water consumption. Nobody is gluing themselves to roads to stop the construction. In fact, governments are racing to approve them. Utilities are rushing to expand generation capacity, nuclear power is back on the table and coal plants that were supposedly destined for closure are being reconsidered. It is almost as if energy was never the problem. It is almost as if carbon emissions were never the real concern. It is almost as if the climate narrative was primarily about controlling human behaviour, restricting economic activity, redirecting investment flows and transforming entire industries under a centrally managed agenda. Now that AI has become the next strategic priority, the mask has slipped. The same institutions that spent years lecturing ordinary people about their carbon footprint are preparing to consume nation sized quantities of electricity to build a planetary scale digital infrastructure. And they expect nobody to notice the contradiction. (Source of map: Natural News) https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel

2
June 9, 2026 Re: Support for Clemency for Roberta Ronique Bell Dear President Trump, My name is Danean MacAndrew. I am a first-time, non-violent, misdemeanor-only January 6 defendant. Thank you for my pardon. I appreciate you fighting for those unjustly prosecuted. I fought my case at trial and was sentenced to three months in now-shuttered FCI Dublin. I was completely out of my element in federal prison, and the person who gave me the most comfort was Roberta Bell. She was always there to give me a hug, a smile, and an encouraging word. She made me feel safe. You, Roberta, and I all have something in common – we are all victims of prosecutorial overreach. You, thankfully, avoided incarceration. I served 78 of 90 days. Tragically, Roberta has served 30 years (so far) of a life sentence. Sir, she does not belong in prison. She was acquitted in state court and rebuilt her life. She was working a meaningful job and caring for her three young children when, two years later, the feds came for her and deemed her a β€œdanger to society.” Labeling Roberta as dangerous is preposterous. I know her. I have lived with her. She is a kind, compassionate, beautiful soul who deserves a second chance. Her life and gifts are being wasted behind bars. She has served more than enough time. I am thoroughly convinced that if she were able to come home, she would be the same loving, giving woman I am proud to call my friend. Please right this wrong, Sir. Please let Roberta come home. Respectfully, Danean MacAndrew
6 252
3
Roberta Bell is one of my two best friends from prison. Her attorneys and I are trying to encourage President Trump to grant her clemency. We think that more signatures on her change.org petition might help. I don't often ask for anything, but if you could please sign this, I'd be eternally grateful. I'll paste in the letter I wrote to President Trump on her behalf in the following post. https://www.change.org/p/life-without-parole-bring-roberta-bell-home
5 725
4
Stop looking through the lens of the world and start looking through the eyes of our Savior. He always provides the best view
Stop looking through the lens of the world and start looking through the eyes of our Savior. He always provides the best views. ❀️ Credit: insta β€” victorianpoetry
6 568
5
We may not always be able to control our life’s circumstances but we always have a choice on how we handle them. ❀️
We may not always be able to control our life’s circumstances but we always have a choice on how we handle them. ❀️
8 644
6
β€οΈπŸ™πŸ»πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
β€οΈπŸ™πŸ»πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
8 877
7
Credit: Instagram - julianclipped
Credit: Instagram - julianclipped
16 122
8
Treat people the way you wish to be treated. ❀️
Treat people the way you wish to be treated. ❀️
10 442
9
Credit: Instagram β€” thefallenpoe.t
Credit: Instagram β€” thefallenpoe.t
11 169
10
The math ain’t mathin’. Wake up, anons.
The math ain’t mathin’. Wake up, anons.
12 516
11
Credit: Instagram β€” lionforchrist
Credit: Instagram β€” lionforchrist
10 286
12
Credit: Instagram β€” thefallenpoe.t
Credit: Instagram β€” thefallenpoe.t
9 351
13
Word to the wise…
Word to the wise…
11 311
14
Credit: Instagram β€” rachelgreentaylor+4
Credit: Instagram β€” rachelgreentaylor
11 519
15
Yes.
Yes.
10 110
16
Not a bad idea, actually…
Not a bad idea, actually…
10 892
17
A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts. So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world. What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable. Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations. The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead. Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described. The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding. The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months. Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight. Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now. She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months. X LINK
12 145
18
69 US jurisdictions have now blocked new data centers. Citing the need to protect local power grids and water supplies, a gro
69 US jurisdictions have now blocked new data centers. Citing the need to protect local power grids and water supplies, a growing number of cities, counties, and towns are pushing back hard against the explosive growth of AI data centers. At least 69 jurisdictions across the United States have passed restrictions or outright moratoriums on new data center construction β€” with four of those bans made permanent. Communities are alarmed by the massive resource demands of these facilities: enormous electricity consumption, millions of gallons of water for cooling, rising utility bills, constant noise, and the loss of local control over land use. What was once welcomed as economic development is now sparking fierce debates about sustainability and quality of life. The tipping point came in Michigan, where a huge AI data center project backed by OpenAI and Oracle was approved despite strong local opposition. The decision triggered a domino effect, with neighboring towns rushing to pass their own bans to prevent similar developments. As tech giants race to build the infrastructure needed for advanced AI, they’re increasingly running into resistance from communities unwilling to sacrifice their environment and resources for corporate expansion. The digital revolution is now colliding with physical reality.
8 167
19
πŸ”₯πŸ‘πŸ”₯
7 172
20
https://x.com/bujokmr/status/2056534223159201877?s=46
7 879