JBCHEPHARM

Double Top Buy triggered above 1933.43 daily close on 3% Box size chart. https://t.co/eELxOeNmvg

Srikanteshwara Temple,
#Nanjangud  #Karnatakatemples 🚩

Srikanteshwara Temple or
Nanjundeshwara Temple is a famous Shiva Temple located in Karnataka at the bank of river  Kapila. Temple is also called Varanasi of South. Nanjunda means one who has consumed poison.

Story is  related to the Samudra Mathanam when Paramashiva had to consume halahala.

Parashurama worshipped Mahadeva here to relieve himself from the curse of Mathru Hatya. While clearing the place to do poojas Parashurama's  axe hit the Shivalingam and it began bleeding, that

mark is still visible even today. Thus
it is also believed that Parashurama did Shiva Prathishta here

Sthala Puranam says that, once there was a demon named Keshi who disturbed the people in the area, after  getting blessing from Brahma Deva  and Mahavishnu. Mahadeva appeared

here and killed demon Keshi and blessed this place as Papa Vinashini. Whoever praying to Srikanteshwara or Nanjundeshwara, after bathing in the  Kabini River will be relieved from all sins.

Nanjundeshwaraya Namah
🙏🕉🙏

The 2018 State of JavaScript survey is out. They got 20,000 responses and have some delicious, delicious data. I'mma thread in some highlights:

First up: JavaScript flavors. There's TypeScript at 47% adoption, a tad higher than npm's own survey results (which said 46%). npm's survey is coming up again soon and will ask about TypeScript in a lot more detail.

I really, *really* like SoJ's "would not use again" question, which lets people who've abandoned a tech self-identify. This is noticeable in the graph above with Flow users -- 41% of people who've used Flow say they wouldn't use it again.

Now JavaScript frameworks. It's been a full year since npm's survey, so these numbers differ from ours in the directions I expected:
React 65% (vs. 60%)
Vue 29% (vs. 24%)
Ember 5% (vs 4%, I was expecting a bigger rise)

But there's a shocker in here: Angular.

npm's survey had Angular at 40% last year and SoJ has it at either:
- 58% (if you include those who don't want to use it again)
- 24% (if you count only those who like it)
Since npm's question didn't ask if they intend to *continue* using it I think that might explain this.

1. Let's talk about the effects of #climatechange on the world's forests, with a focus on the northwest of Canada. This is also about electoral #greenwash, and my duty as public servant and right as private Canadian citizen to speak freely about what I know.

2. Why am I compelled to speak? How am I free to speak? The answer is in the federal Values and Ethics Code of Coduct (VECC).

3. It can be career-limiting to criticize government policy when you work for government. Duty of Loyalty is very, very important. However, as VECC makes clear, it is not absolute. In fact SCoC has ruled twice in favour of citizen free speech as a higher ideal. In 1985 and 2001.

4. I am therefore perfectly comfortable showing you the scary things that are happening in the North under a warming climate. A failure to meet global GHG emissions targets is hurting Canada's forests in a way we used to think wouldn't happen for decades.

5. Warming temperatures and rising [CO2] could, in theory, help green the planet with more vigorous tree growth. But that's not what's happening. Don't believe the #greenwash. The positive effects are over and it is warm enough that we are now starting the into the negative.

Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.