Here is P&F charts for short term, medium term and long term - very interesting
- on short term probable ACFT
- on medium term bear trap and bullish ABC pattern / bearish momentum in PMOX became overbought quickly
- multi year BO above 1939 on 4%
More from DTBhat
#TVSMOTOR futures - new counts opened. Earlier count of 795 reached !!!!!!
100+ points done and counting
@ctrameshraja sir you had nudged me on this below 700 https://t.co/lMPqvWLLUm
100+ points done and counting
@ctrameshraja sir you had nudged me on this below 700 https://t.co/lMPqvWLLUm
#FusionMatrix - top three outperforming stocks are from Auto Sector. @shivaji_1983 we discussed this today#MNM (M&M)#TVSMOTOR#ASHOKLEY https://t.co/n6J2oKT4aO pic.twitter.com/iOxKEveBSn
— DTBhat (@dtbhat) June 23, 2022
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?