#BajajFinance breaking out.
#BajajFinance Looks good above 5750 / 5820 levels. My next targets would be around 7200. pic.twitter.com/LpiaBmRaHF
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) May 22, 2021
More from Dare2Dream
@caniravkaria @RajarshitaS
#AdaniPort The stock came up with good results. But even more important is this.
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) May 5, 2021
Levels of 795 and 845 need to be taken on upside. https://t.co/7cdolXnASH pic.twitter.com/M9ckGJw8lc
More from Bajajfinance

#BAJFINANCE-- When fear was all around pandemic, i prefer to stick to the chart and picked it around 2400 Level now trading with 100+% gain, here is the updated chart and target as per Horizontal Count = 8000, TSL is going to be 4500 going forward. https://t.co/8kRQg1BnQK pic.twitter.com/U6pQj3uvvv
— VVikas Kumaarr (@flyingvikas129) February 7, 2021
You May Also Like
View the resolutions and voting results here:
The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.
Israel and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr

The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.
Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab

The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF

The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW

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?