and we are in the range now! 15282 is the low of the range. I start buying between 15666-15282. Big Q is, will we stop in the range & reverse? Honestly, I don't know. All I know is range is here, deserves some allocation in core conviction ideas. #niftymasterchart https://t.co/RXuJb0dTWi
If we are to continue LH-LL setup & break 16666 on daily we will finally complete this drag near 15214. I am not bearish. In fact, this should give amazing opportunity to buy. Until then 16666-17300 continue to provide L-H range for traders. pic.twitter.com/tfIq00VJmZ
— Ameya (@Finstor85) May 2, 2022
More from Ameya
This is line chart based arc I plotted a few days ago to see where does the target of 2nd arc completes. We got ~9200(+/- 100/-) Switch to candles. See rejection area. Arc on candles is not really ideal but on line it is. No view above 9200! MAs need to catch up. #TATAELXSI pic.twitter.com/WNJRZZedrj
— Ameya (@Finstor85) March 30, 2022
Almost every 6 year, Chennai Petro falls to 80 odd level, rises to 460-480 and falls again to touch same level. It happened in 2009, happened in 2015, 2020 it just reversed from 80 and result also to assist!! Can we see cycle playing out again?
— Ameya (@Finstor85) July 25, 2020
More from Niftylongterm
If it closes below 15700 then we can see 15500/15160
5th wave-can get truncated,
Get rid of kachra!!
Good opportunity to accumulate quality companies
chart👇
cheers https://t.co/b0M5QRcq7e
Please use the opportunity to move out of the low-quality companies into high-quality companies.
— Moneyspinners - Work Hard, Dream Big!! (@Jai0409) May 18, 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?