#CNXIT -26770
Weekly chart. https://t.co/YVjvgZIy0Y
#CNXIT
— Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) \u092e\u0948\u0902Schedule Tribe) (@idineshptl) May 26, 2022
Weekly chart.
Minor pullback before further downside.
Respecting #Fibonacci retracement level 0.382%#Probability pic.twitter.com/y2JvoIikDI
More from Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) मैंSchedule Tribe)
More from Cnxitlongterm
What happened to IEX can happen to CNXIT. Savdhaan rahe, satark rahe. Reiterating it again, every falling wedge/channel, RSI divergence is not a reversal signal.
#CNXIT
#CNXIT
Watching the marked zone to be tested. If it doesn't cross it, then most probably a parabolic downmove towards 24k. That would lead to even large caps cracking just like Small and Midcaps. #CNXIT https://t.co/FxbzP5vlBr pic.twitter.com/FSqcSqTQM9
— Aakash Gangwar (@akashgngwr823) June 21, 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?