NAVINFLUOR
Double Top Buy triggered above 3704.66 daily close on 3% Box Size chart. https://t.co/b5KkTmtjl5
NAVINFLUOR
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) March 2, 2021
Double Top Buy above 2839.32 daily close on 3% Box Size Chart and Double Top Buy active on 1% Box size chart. https://t.co/HiLu17wobZ pic.twitter.com/6JIStAhaSO
More from Saket Reddy
Today's closing is a monthly close and this is done & dusted, we now have a solid monthly close above the 10 year supply zone.
If the stock has broken out from a 10 year supply zone & a 20 year peak, surely something would've changed!
Do study the industry structure! https://t.co/zA3qztFzon
SAREGAMA at a very important juncture now on the monthly chart considering today's close is also a monthly close.
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) May 31, 2021
Nearing a breakout from over a 10 year supply zone! https://t.co/qpsSn3obrE pic.twitter.com/1xTmB6WvhK
More from Navinflourine
#NavinFluorine A breakout above 3566, this one could head next to 4100/4200 levels. Long term levels have shared already. #Dare2DRM https://t.co/FvexrxG0T8 pic.twitter.com/DHYAiEZ1j9
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) May 1, 2021
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?