More from Sir Metafool
More from Pump dump
The Wall Street Bets due diligence on Wendy’s is gold.
The catalysts are:
◻️ The release of a new summer salad
◻️ The @Wendys Twitter account, which has mastered “meta pragmatic roasting” (which is effective with younger people)
◻️ The fact it literally sells chicken tendies
OP:
Here’s a more fundamentals-driven analysis of Wendy’s
https://t.co/A2k19S9M7J
😂😂😂
Further Wendy’s analysis from @CliffordAsness !!
The catalysts are:
◻️ The release of a new summer salad
◻️ The @Wendys Twitter account, which has mastered “meta pragmatic roasting” (which is effective with younger people)
◻️ The fact it literally sells chicken tendies
OP:
Here’s a more fundamentals-driven analysis of Wendy’s
https://t.co/A2k19S9M7J
😂😂😂
\u201cThe name of the company is Wendy\u2019s International $WEN. It is a cutting edge high tech firm out of rural Ohio that is awaiting imminent patent approval on the next generation of summer salads that have both huge military and civilian applications.\u201d pic.twitter.com/qmk4hkKL3N
— u/1ronyman (@1ronyman1) June 8, 2021
Further Wendy’s analysis from @CliffordAsness !!
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?