#BSOFT
The price is bounded by a significant support & resistance level backed up a prior trend.
A continued breakout above 465 and sustenance above the same would trigger 480 followed by 510.
#StockToWatch

More from Gurleen
#NAUKRI Update
6718.35📍
Three white soldiers with strong closing's one above the other.
The pattern target lies at 7200 levels.
#stockmarkets https://t.co/Pex4mVNKS5
6718.35📍
Three white soldiers with strong closing's one above the other.
The pattern target lies at 7200 levels.
#stockmarkets https://t.co/Pex4mVNKS5

#NAUKRI
— Gurleen (@GurleenKaur_19) August 18, 2021
Slow and gradual turn from down to sideways to up.
Might be offing for a breakout above 5640 towards 5800 followed by 6000. #StockMarket #StocksToWatch pic.twitter.com/3rAUGA7V99
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?