πππππππππππ (π)
Price respecting 21EMA and bouncing back from it π§
@PAlearner @Puretechnicals9 @AnandableAnand
@ArjunB9591 @harrie007 @Jitendra_stock @MaverickAmit01
More from Jubliantingrevia
695 to 730 https://t.co/MbxPEvUYgl
Jubilant Ingrevia - will be looking to scale this up further. Pyramiding. Coming back once more near 20 MA. https://t.co/mulUpbf4Mn pic.twitter.com/vL1oKc92nL
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@nison_steve) September 7, 2021
Any dip till 740 seems a buying opportunity.
Post Q2 it may give decent up move.
#INVESTING https://t.co/gyyuivs0tT
Ideally this should cross four digit in mid term if they maintain similar growth
— JAKERA CHOUDHURY (@Jakerachoudhury) July 22, 2021
Happy that you are making profit in this. Kudos#jubilant ingrevia https://t.co/le7f6bSjuz
You May Also Like
If everyone was holding bitcoin on the old x86 in their parents basement, we would be finding a price bottom. The problem is the risk is all pooled at a few brokerages and a network of rotten exchanges with counter party risk that makes AIG circa 2008 look like a good credit.
— Greg Wester (@gwestr) November 25, 2018
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
