More from DTBhat
More from Infy
@niki_poojary My chart reading on #infy
@PRSundar64 @niki_poojary Low of 1590, the PRZ on the hourly charts ! Now 1650 will be a stiff resistance !!
@PRSundar64 #infy update !
#Infosys weekly setup will turn terrible below 1650 - possible downside targets are marked in the chart
— Srihari MS (@mssrihari_rta) April 15, 2022
Hope 1650 saves one more time !! pic.twitter.com/caVBa8XndR
@PRSundar64 @niki_poojary Low of 1590, the PRZ on the hourly charts ! Now 1650 will be a stiff resistance !!

@PRSundar64 #infy update !

#Infy futures Bullish continuation patterns, new bullish ABC. Cluster counts at 1655-1658 area
In options strategy brought the wings inside and locked more profits https://t.co/wIPMUofhm6
In options strategy brought the wings inside and locked more profits https://t.co/wIPMUofhm6

#Infy futures crossed 1600
— DTBhat (@dtbhat) August 4, 2022
Booked half in 1600CE in Call Debit Spread and converted to a butterfly https://t.co/NZdSOC4wrd pic.twitter.com/p8FgBaAyhC
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?