#DLF Lot of chatter on this one. The stock could be headed to 294 levels. Personally, I would be interested only above levels of of 294. Long term trend is up.
More from Dare2Dream
#Metals All in one place#Sail \U0001f680 #TataSteel\U0001f680 #Vedl\U0001f6eb #Jswsteel\U0001f680\U0001f680 #Graphite\U0001f680 #Heg\U0001f680
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) April 29, 2021
Very shortly I expect #Hindcopper as well, still at the launch pad. #Vedl #Hindalco yet to pick up pace.@caniravkaria https://t.co/eeOxZ7WWvo
#Indiamart Update : The correction in the stock could be over. Stock holding good supports. Watch for upside momentum as #Unlock plays out. My SL here would be 6650 levels#Dare2Drm pic.twitter.com/JLwujVPcl0
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) June 13, 2021
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?