Jubilant Ingrevia - pulling back with low volume again. https://t.co/feSXlVhoya
Also on my radar for today:
— Steve Nison (@nison_steve) July 29, 2021
1. ACE (Entry already done & SL is 230)
2. Jubilant Ingrevia (SL 550) - stock re-tested support pic.twitter.com/3S9UdDhhHL
More from Steve Nison
Russell 2000
It is better if you spend considerable time learning these concepts. https://t.co/caBHOO4Owa
TRAPS? In a false breakout, the price breaks out of the range & comes back within the range. A trap is one step ahead, price not only comes back within the range but breaks down in the opposite direction. It traps the initial longs who didn't close their positions
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) January 22, 2022
Russell 2000 pic.twitter.com/txzjdnStzc
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 Jubliantingrevia
💥 11% Up
Trading at ATH
#jubilantingrevia #jubilingrea
— Sk Parbesh\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\U0001f4ca\U0001f4c8\U0001f4c9 (@Chart_View) July 21, 2021
Breakout from tight consolidation with highest daily volume exactly from support
Posted Excellent Q1 Result
Good Setup to go long
CMP: 589
Weakness below: 540 DCB@nid_rockz https://t.co/03RvbA2oZy pic.twitter.com/Vl6Rk52noY
#JUBLINGREA
Updated Chart
Also on my radar for today:
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) July 29, 2021
1. ACE (Entry already done & SL is 230)
2. Jubilant Ingrevia (SL 550) - stock re-tested support pic.twitter.com/3S9UdDhhHL
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?