Channels

Top 100 Trending New

Categories

Crypto Gaming News Entertainment Music Sports Tech Gambling Bots and mini apps Finance Business Education Lifestyle Health Travel Auto Fashion Jobs Dating Deals and shopping

Stickers

Stickers Emoji Themes Wallpapers

Bots Gifts Tools

Currency

$ USD ₽ RUB € EUR ₴ UAH ₸ KZT ₺ TRY zł PLN ₪ ILS AED AED R$ BRL Rp IDR RM MYR ¥ JPY ₩ KRW CN¥ CNY

Theme

Português (Brasil)

Bahasa Indonesia

Беларуская

Українська

Channels Categories Stickers Bots Gifts Tools

Premium Wiki Glossary Legal

Notifications Settings Log in

English Rants: post #26 — TG.ME

English Rants@EnglishRants · 38 subscribers Open in TelegramOpen

[media without text]

t.me/EnglishRants/26

2

1

August 31, 2026 128 5

More from this channel

Stress is a skill killer I see this happen with my students all the time. They do great during lessons. They speak freely, remember the vocabulary, and generally feel that everything is working just fine. Then the real test comes when they actually need their English: they have an interview, travel to another country, or join an important work call. Afterwards, they come back and say: “I couldn’t speak at all.” This happens so often that I had to adapt my lessons around it a long time ago. So let’s look at why it happens and what you can actually do about it. The short version is that stress consumes mental resources. Instead of simply listening and responding, you start monitoring yourself: Did I understand them correctly? Is my grammar right? Do I sound stupid? Why can’t I remember this word? They’re waiting. I need to say something. The more attention goes into this internal panic, the less remains for speaking. Stress doesn't break your English, it makes your brain focus on self-assessment instead of the conversation. So, how do you deal with it? First, the bad news: you can’t make your skills completely immune to stress. If the situation matters enough, your performance will probably get worse. The good news is that the size of that drop isn’t set in stone. The first thing is to stress-test your English occasionally. Practice with time pressure, unexpected questions, interruptions, and situations where you don’t know exactly what is coming. If your English only ever operates in lessons that your teacher is trying to make as comfortable as possible, you don’t really know what will survive outside them. The second thing is to prepare one simple rule for an upcoming stressful situation and drill it into your head. Preferably make it conversation-related and not grammar-related. For example: I will start with the main fact and add the details afterwards. Not ten use cases for Present Perfect Continuous. Not “I’ll try to use advanced vocabulary and avoid every grammar mistake.” One clear instruction gives your brain something useful to focus on instead of allowing it to jump between 20 rules in every sentence. You probably won’t speak as well under stress the first time you have to use English for real. But, with repeated exposure, your brain will recognize that no one is going to eat you if you make a tense mistake. And you will stop stressing as English becomes just another regular thing. That is when your English will start to shine. ————————— Сегодня размышлялка для вас, постарайтесь осилить – советы полезные. Если будут мысли на тему – велком в комментарии, с удовольствием почитаю, особенно если по-английски напишите 😁 107·Aug 20 One thing I learned recently is that “you don’t understand the process” is an extremely convenient argument. And sometimes it is completely true. The other person really doesn’t understand the process. Their shortcut really is stupid, and explaining why it is stupid takes considerably longer than recognizing it. But I also noticed how easy it is to hide behind that explanation. When you have spent years working in a field, many parts of your process become obvious to you. You know that skipping a particular step is a bad idea because you have seen it go wrong before. But knowing from experience that something works is not the same as understanding why it works. So when someone questions the process, “Trust me, this is how it works” can be your immediate reaction. Sometimes that confidence comes from genuine understanding. Sometimes it comes from never having to examine your own assumptions closely enough to explain them. I have found that it’s important to understand that “Trust me” isn't an actionable answer. The person approving your work still needs to understand what outcome the process should produce, how long it might take, which early signs will show that it is working, and when the approach should be reconsidered. Being forced to explain all of that was frustrating, but it also made me separate the parts of my process that were genuinely necessary from the parts I followed because “this is how it has always been done.” I still think people need to respect expertise they don’t have. But I also think that explaining your process – and occasionally discovering that you cannot explain it – is part of growing from a good specialist into an actual expert in your field. Explaining things forces you to understand your job at a much deeper level. Not just “this is how you do it,” but exactly how it works and why this approach is considered standard. That deeper understanding allows you to manipulate and adapt the process instead of merely following it. Only then can you produce exceptional results that would not be possible otherwise. ——————————— Пишите в комментариях, прятались ли вы за “это сложно, просто поверь мне, так надо делать” или вы все-таки были правы и предложенный шорткат действительно был идиотским. Лучше на английском, и я по нескольким комментариям дам короткий фидбек по языку. 53·Aug 12 When you work in content, it is impossible to avoid LLMs and the communication issues around them. Now, this isn’t another rant about how magical or useless AI is. My stance is pretty mild: it handles baseline work well but often falls short when the output really needs to perform. Instead, I want to talk about understanding and accurately communicating the capabilities of LLMs. A pretty standard situation now is management asking if a particular content pipeline can be automated with AI. The issue I keep seeing is that the specialist says “yes,” the manager hears that “yes,” but they have pretty different ideas of what that “yes” means. Typically, the specialist means something like “AI can produce drafts or handle the predictable parts of the pipeline.” The manager hears that the pipeline can now operate automatically and reliably without requiring human hours. The issue is that however well AI performs, someone still has to provide input and context, evaluate the output, catch plausible-looking bullshit, edit it, handle exceptions, and take responsibility when the pipeline fails. My general takeaway from communication about AI is that precision is crucial here. If you say, “Yes, AI can handle that,” but then spend 3 hours a day on this task, is the question “How come you’re working on this if we have AI?” really out of the blue? When answering, it is helpful to consider what the other person knows and what they don’t. If your manager doesn’t have years of experience in your field or with AI-assisted workflows, you need to fill that gap in your answer. Instead of saying, “Yes, we can use AI here,” I have found it helpful to be very specific about: What exactly AI can handle What human work will remain What failure rate we are prepared to accept The better answer might be: “AI can handle these parts, but this part still requires human hours for these reasons. The AI-generated parts also require quality checks for these reasons. We could automate another part, but it would produce problematic results at a certain rate, so we need to decide whether the additional speed is worth the lower quality.” And I personally prefer to be really explicit about that last decision. If the company knowingly chooses speed over quality, the resulting problems should be accepted as a business tradeoff. The people working on the pipeline should not be expected to somehow produce perfect quality from a process designed to tolerate bad output. ————————————— Мне интересно узнать про опыт технических специалистов с ИИшкой. У вас есть такое же ощущение, что простой, понятный дефолтный код ИИшка напишет плюс-минус без проблем, но если нужно, чтобы код реально перформил и был хорошо оптимизирован, то генерить его – себе дороже, исправлять потом придется дольше, чем самому написать? И как вы обсуждаете с компанией интеграцию ИИ? Получается согласовать, что можно, а что не нужно отдавать ИИ, или сталкиваетесь с завышенными ожиданиями от аутпута ИИ? Пишите ваши мысли в комментариях на английском – и я, как всегда, по некоторым комментам дам подсказки или фидбек в плане английского языка. 53·Aug 8 My last project was my first experience working directly with the founder on a regular basis. And I feel like it was a massive culture shock. Before you start working directly with founders, most of your bosses understand your field and the work you do. A founder often doesn't. They are intensely focused on outcomes but may misunderstand or undervalue the process needed to produce them. What this leads to in terms of communication is that you have to argue for your work all the time: justify the process, connect it to results, and explain why their brilliant shortcut simply won't work. Dealing with "founder logic" is uniquely frustrating at first. From your perspective it is obvious that content takes time to gain traction and start attracting traffic, because that is how you have seen it work throughout your career. However, from their perspective, if content is good, people will immediately like it, so there should be an immediate result. And from their perspective, this logic is ironclad. If you think about it, though, it isn't incompetence. Founders are responsible for the entire company, but you cannot expect them to be experts in every function of the company. And how do you make sure that the idea you don’t really understand isn’t about to ruin the company you’ve spent years carefully building? You question it, of course. In the end, I think it forces you to become a better expert. Instead of simply accepting that "this is the way it has always worked," now you have to figure out why it always works that way. When working with founders, just knowing your job isn't enough anymore. You have to spend a considerable amount of time explaining your reasoning to someone outside your field clearly enough to give them a reason to trust your judgment. Have you ever worked directly with founders or stakeholders? If yes, was it a culture shock? If not, did I just scare you? 😄 ———————— Придумал бонусную плюшку, как попрактиковаться с языком. Пишите ваши ответы в комментах на английском, и я по нескольким комментам дам фидбек в плане языка. И мне будет интересно ваши мысли почитать, и вам будет полезно потренироваться их выражать, и вы получите подсказки, что можно делать лучше в плане языка. Капец, последние 2 дня я win-win выдаю как печатный станок 😅 51·Aug 5 [media post]Aug 4

An open web layer over public Telegram — search, stats and channel reading right in your browser, no account, no install.

Not affiliated with Telegram FZ-LLC; all data comes from public sources.

Catalog

Top channels Categories Countries Search

Content

Stickers Emoji Gifts Themes Wallpapers

Help

Tools Wiki Glossary Blockchain Safety Premium Advertisers Advertising

© 2026 TG.ME · G.Media network· Updated 09/04/2026 · v0.2.0 · ee6ec29

Privacy Terms DMCA & complaints Report a violation

Where to next

Hamster Kombat Announcement21.4M subscribers

Blum: All Crypto – One App14.8M subscribers

Proxy MTProto11.9M subscribers

Major Community11.4M subscribers

Telegram Tips11M subscribers

Pavel Durov10.9M subscribers

tapswap community10.6M subscribers

Telegram News9.6M subscribers