IT Index, the original leader of the rally from Mar'20, now seems to be exhausted / giving up.
With a Hanging Man on Quarterly, it now seems to be breaking out of the rising regression channel post Tweezer Top candles on Monthly charts.

More from Piyush Chaudhry
#APOLLOHOSP @ 2110 - Long Term Chart.
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) November 12, 2020
I see a fair possibility of the stock rising to 3500-5000 zone over next few years and an open possibility of the next zone of 5000-7500 as well.
Invalidation on break below Blue TL. pic.twitter.com/QJ5aY4eTT8
More from Cnxitlongterm
#CNXIT https://t.co/bJeKTMoCji

The current formation might look like a falling wedge, but the way moving averages are placed, it looks like a falling wedge which can lead to a parabolic downmove for the marked target. #CNXIT pic.twitter.com/GmXOI3HmUN
— Aakash Gangwar (@akashgngwr823) May 10, 2022
#CNXIT https://t.co/w3qedea7T6

Almost there. Quick move. It can spend time over here before the next leg of fall. Let's see.#NIFTYIT https://t.co/GOB28HRvMp pic.twitter.com/6sNc7j8gEU
— Aakash Gangwar (@akashgngwr823) March 9, 2022
#CNXIT
Watching the marked zone to be tested. If it doesn't cross it, then most probably a parabolic downmove towards 24k. That would lead to even large caps cracking just like Small and Midcaps. #CNXIT https://t.co/FxbzP5vlBr pic.twitter.com/FSqcSqTQM9
— Aakash Gangwar (@akashgngwr823) June 21, 2022
You May Also Like
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?