is open for essay submissions until February 28, so here’s a #RumpusEssays thread in which our amazing editors share what they would like to see in submissions. Give them a follow and send your essay our way via @submittable

Latest update from @TheBernician

1/19

Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson Stand Accused of Pandemic Fraud.

After yet more damning evidence arose last week, further additions had to be made to the court papers, which we are now aiming to lay in the coming week.

2/19

The four defendants will be Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson, each of whom has inextricable and ultimately incriminating connections with Bill Gates and Big Pharma.

3/19

As well as three counts of fraud by false representation and seven counts of fraud by non-disclosure, under sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we can now also prove that the entire worldwide scamdemic originated on these shores.

4/19

In fact, we can show that, without the dishonest statements and non-disclosures of the four defendants we are initially proceeding against, COVID-1984 would not have transpired.

5/19

Furthermore, the 1st defendant, Matt Hancock, cannot rely upon the defence of Parliamentary Privilege, on the ground that none of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is capable of preventing parliamentarians from carrying out their lawful business in Parliament.

So I was talking to @gewt about Job: A Comedy of Justice and I came up with a theory that I think explains why Heinlein's late-period work is so kinda-terrible and why I still enjoy it so much

So Heinlein had always been very interesting in the short parts of his novels, like the little snippets inside chapters. He had a very fun writing style, and wrote some fun dialogue with fun characters, right?>
It probably comes from how much of his early stuff was short fiction

And I think what happened with a lot of his longer works is that he'd just start writing fun bits and hope it would end up going somewhere or having a bigger plot by the end. like eventually he'd figure out where this was going, then go back and rewrite it into a cohesive whole

and I'm sure he had editors that'd help this process. No editor would let you publish something as rambly and changing-gears-every-other-chapter as The Number Of The Beast, for example... unless you were God-King Of Science Fiction 1980s Robert Heinlein.

so basically I think what happened is that by the 80s (when he was in his seventies!!) he lost the drive to go back and rewrite and he was too Untouchable for editors to make him.

Technical Analysis Masterclass- Part 2

'Entering the trade'

Entering a trade without ascertaining a certain things is gambling.

In this masterclass we will learn the pre-requisites to enter a trade.

DON'T ENTER A TRADE WITHOUT DETERMINNG THE FOLLOWING.

Please share.

We understand what reward to risk (popularly called risk to reward) is.
It will be denoted by R:R.

We will also try to bust a few myths about R:R and how to avoid losing trades.

Before entering a trade, you need to determine 3 things.

1. Entry trigger
2. Stop loss
3. Target

1. Entry trigger = Reasons for entering a trade. There could be multiple reasons or a single reason for entry.

Generally a set of reasons AKA confluence is a higher probability trade and a generally a safer entry.

Example of an entry trigger.

2. Stop Loss.

The price in the opposite direction of the trade where the trade is exited, at a loss.

At this level, the reason for the entry becomes invalidated according to TA and the price can then move in the opposite direction, probabilistically.

3. Target is the possible price level that the asset might touch based on previous trends or confluence AND where a possible reversal could occur.

Target is the next path of least resistance from where the price might reverse.

We will always ONLY use TA to determine all 3.