More from Nishant Kumar
More from Maithanalloys
#Maithanalloys #dailychart https://t.co/9TEjF684f3
#Maithanalloys #Publicdemand\U0001f600
— Pranay Prasun (@PranayPrasun) July 4, 2021
Highlighted at 560\U0001f525 level and i'm going to cover all major timeframes \U0001f447
~ What next ?
~ When to add ?
~ Immediate target
~ stop loss https://t.co/v1qWY5TrYQ
Will post charts of next potential movers tomorrow. Interested?
#Dare2Drm
#HindCopper Stock is coming out of a big consolidation. A move above 147, stock could be headed to 165 (next resistance). If #BseMetals index breaks out, i am expecting levels of 196 again and if that gets taken out, levels of 220. lets see - one step at a time
#Dare2Drm
#Dare2Drm
Will post charts of next potential movers tomorrow. Interested.#Dare2Drm
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) July 9, 2021
#HindCopper Stock is coming out of a big consolidation. A move above 147, stock could be headed to 165 (next resistance). If #BseMetals index breaks out, i am expecting levels of 196 again and if that gets taken out, levels of 220. lets see - one step at a time
#Dare2Drm
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?