BC MV

@markminervini I use MarketSmith for scans. I look for their RS rating over 80 and weekly gains over 10%, along with market cap over 1 billion and daily trading volume over 300k. I run the scan daily, look at charts and pull names into a watch list. I then follow those stocks 1/

@maxmaster21 @markminervini I look at the history of the stock & see if it’s been honoring its 5 day, 10 day, 20 day, or other moving average. If it has been honoring one of those lines & it pulls back close to the ma of support or another level of prior support or resistance I buy if volume is light. 2/
@maxmaster21 @markminervini When I buy, I scale in and see if it’s working. I’ll usually give 1-3% of room beneath the support level before I cut it. I’d say I’m right less than but close to half the time. But my gains are bigger than 1-3% on average. I have very few positions (1-4) 3/3

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?