BAJFINANCE
Double Top Buy above 7989.44 daily close on 3% Box Size chart. https://t.co/CCuH1Y9QTV
BAJFINANCE
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) October 13, 2021
Double Top Buy above 7904.58 daily close on 1% Box size chart. https://t.co/v7IfC9FlEE pic.twitter.com/j8dgoQeZhA
More from Saket Reddy
SAREGAMA
Today's closing is a monthly close and this is done & dusted, we now have a solid monthly close above the 10 year supply zone.
If the stock has broken out from a 10 year supply zone & a 20 year peak, surely something would've changed!
Do study the industry structure! https://t.co/zA3qztFzon
Today's closing is a monthly close and this is done & dusted, we now have a solid monthly close above the 10 year supply zone.
If the stock has broken out from a 10 year supply zone & a 20 year peak, surely something would've changed!
Do study the industry structure! https://t.co/zA3qztFzon
SAREGAMA at a very important juncture now on the monthly chart considering today's close is also a monthly close.
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) May 31, 2021
Nearing a breakout from over a 10 year supply zone! https://t.co/qpsSn3obrE pic.twitter.com/1xTmB6WvhK
More from Bajajfinance
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?