Deepak Nitrite - Heading towards Cup & Handle target of 2270. Let us see how to goes. https://t.co/BY7v6zGzv3
Deepak Nitrite - watchlist for pyramiding. Low risk-setup. pic.twitter.com/Thi6EFWZvW
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) June 30, 2021
More from Steve Nison
ITC - how beautifully the price patterns work. All of a sudden an increased momentum right from the support of the channel boundary. Has a minor resistance to nail down in the middle.
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) March 18, 2022
Anyone observing it would have gone aggressive at lower end for a swing move pic.twitter.com/YqxkdFlJXQ
More from Deepaknitrate
2150 📍
On weekly log scale; The trend remains intact towards the upside. Next up would be 2340.
[As mentioned; this can be in one's long term portfolio, Targets would keep on becoming elongated.]
#StockMarket #StocksInFocus #investing https://t.co/HJH5XwMRf5
#DEEPAKNITRITE Update
— Gurleen (@GurleenKaur_19) July 30, 2021
Reclaimed ATH and fresh at 2052.90
Came up with Great numbers and this can be in one's portfolio for long term. #StockMarket #StocksInFocus https://t.co/dMWyf013Nt pic.twitter.com/vxV6c0Eskp
You May Also Like
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?