KOTAK BANK
In case of a breakdown below 1787.80, the level of 1727 looks likely.
Invalidation level: 1848.80
More from Gurleen
More from Kotakbank
#KOTAKBANK Update
Midway resistances held up strong.
Once these are breached, It is poised for more towards 1950 followed by 2000.
#StockMarket #StocksInFocus https://t.co/kswtnvjQM8
Midway resistances held up strong.
Once these are breached, It is poised for more towards 1950 followed by 2000.
#StockMarket #StocksInFocus https://t.co/kswtnvjQM8
#KOTAKBANK
— Gurleen (@GurleenKaur_19) August 8, 2021
In daily; Trendline breakout along with price volume action.
Resistances midway at 1812.70 and 1856.75.
Once these are breached, It is poised for more towards 1950 followed by 2000.
In weekly as well; Setup looks quite bullish. #StockMarket #StocksToTrade pic.twitter.com/vfIjR7MuCE
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
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?
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?