Nifty Metal time to be cautious.
No point in chasing at these levels.
Will post my actual and inverted chart later.
#Niftymetal
More from Shivaji Vitthalrao🇮🇳
More upside above 158.
Targets as given 200-212
#Hindcopper
Hindcopper cmp146+
— Shivaji Vitthalrao\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@shivaji_1983) July 6, 2021
Previous low 135 can be the SL for longs.
Possible short term bottom here CONFIRMATION ABOVE 158 for further upside https://t.co/iofvrn6l5b
What was on the charts ?
Once 135 was crossed there was no looking back @moneyworks4u_fa
Lots of hints given 😊🙏
#NTPC -- On the verge of 13yr breakout above 140-144 can do 170-180 pic.twitter.com/eDBGHVqlYz
— Shivaji Vitthalrao\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@shivaji_1983) March 24, 2022
More from Nishhindcopper
A simple and clean chart, international prices are soaring, mines are limited, demand is growing!!
can it sustain the rise and continue to stay outside of the trendline, watch out!!
@nishkumar1977 https://t.co/bICIr6RHVf

Hindustan copper - Another clean and simple chart!!
— Moneyspinners-Work 4UR Dreams (@Jai0409) April 16, 2021
Whenever international prices shot up commodity stocks start soaring, previously it went up from 73 to 165!!
Now can it give move to 200/230+!!
Chart\U0001f447 https://t.co/1TJRP7rj0P pic.twitter.com/oFuBpgFgpl
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?