#Lauruslabs new website for CDMO
https://t.co/8GsCECr9Wq
and biologicals
https://t.co/pBr3GKEi9G
Both are multiyear themes...
More from jeevan patwa
More from Lauruslabs
LAURUSLABS
Haters are gonna hate, but IMO, this is the best opportunity to start pyramiding and make it a well sized holding.
A trio of patterns coming together, has one of the highest success rate!
Double Top Buy, T20 Pattern - Bullish & Super pattern - Bullish above 477.81! https://t.co/SqzkTyb9wx
Haters are gonna hate, but IMO, this is the best opportunity to start pyramiding and make it a well sized holding.
A trio of patterns coming together, has one of the highest success rate!
Double Top Buy, T20 Pattern - Bullish & Super pattern - Bullish above 477.81! https://t.co/SqzkTyb9wx
LAURUSLABS
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) December 17, 2020
There was no entry in Oct as the stock didn't close above 340.
Don't chase & don't buy it for short term.
Now, DTB above 348.15 daily close (Now trading at similar levels).
Wait for close above it or check if it's above the trigger price after 15:20 and enter. https://t.co/vh5hZpjJER pic.twitter.com/EprcgeLSqb
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?