#IRCTC -2351
Now above 1.272% (2325)
Next 1.618%
Than 2.618% ...
Near term Base case 1987.
#Probability
More from MaRkET WaVES (DINESH PATEL ) Stock Market FARMER
More from Irctc
Runaway Gaps are traded like flag & pennant patterns. The price move before the gap is projected upwards for the price target. Here the target comes out to be 3230. https://t.co/QuKrekfHG3
IRCTC - A perfect pullback on low volumes after a high volume breakout. Low-risk setup. Weak below 2015 pic.twitter.com/jSHBlEhkE0
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) June 9, 2021
approching upper trendine , might took a small pause or need to break resistance with good volumes
target was 2900 , made high 2897 , with just 3 points short.
booking some positions as reached near resistance , will add near supportive trendline,
holding rest for 3600 https://t.co/2H0myGPgu5
Itctc
— Vibhor Varshney (@nakulvibhor) September 2, 2021
Entered 2800 \u2705
Heading towards 2900 target
Then 3600
Holding personally in folio \U0001f44d https://t.co/jd2OOQTSLs
You May Also Like
- Forget what you don't have, make your strength bold
- Pick one work experience and explain what you did in detail w/ bullet points
- Write it towards the role you apply
- Give social proof
/thread
"But I got no work experience..."
Make a open source lib, make a small side project for yourself, do freelance work, ask friends to work with them, no friends? Find friends on Github, and Twitter.
Bonus points:
- Show you care about the company: I used the company's brand font and gradient for in the resume for my name and "Thank You" note.
- Don't list 15 things and libraries you worked with, pick the most related ones to the role you're applying.
-🙅♂️"copy cover letter"
"I got no firends, no work"
One practical way is to reach out to conferences and offer to make their website for free. But make sure to do it good. You'll get:
- a project for portfolio
- new friends
- work experience
- learnt new stuff
- new thing for Twitter bio
If you don't even have the skills yet, why not try your chance for @LambdaSchool? No? @freeCodeCamp. Still not? Pick something from here and learn https://t.co/7NPS1zbLTi
You'll feel very overwhelmed, no escape, just acknowledge it and keep pushing.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
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?