More from Shubham Mishra🇮🇳⚡
More from Niftylongterm
If it closes below 15700 then we can see 15500/15160
5th wave-can get truncated,
Get rid of kachra!!
Good opportunity to accumulate quality companies
chart👇
cheers https://t.co/b0M5QRcq7e

Please use the opportunity to move out of the low-quality companies into high-quality companies.
— Moneyspinners - Work Hard, Dream Big!! (@Jai0409) May 18, 2022
₹Nifty > #Nifty
Tight Bearish divergence on Nifty Weekly. Ready to snap back to Weekly 20 EMA? Current Weekly 20 EMA at 16864. Stay Cautious!
— Krunal Thakkar (@KrunallThakkar) October 22, 2021
\u20b9Nifty > #Nifty
Explanation for the alarm that sounded. Textbook short term top.
Clean technicals.
₹Nifty > #Nifty

Is Nifty gunning for an ultimate double zig-zag shake out towards 17k which would coincide with weekly 20 EMA and 100 DEMA tag? Fair possibility. Only time will tell. Watch for the break of 50 DEMA and support zone.
₹Nifty > #Nifty
@piyushchaudhry

If Nifty breaks 50 DEMA and closes below 17700. 17220-17150-17000 possible. Worst case scenario is ~17000. Lot of confluence support in that range.
Do your DD.
₹Nifty > #Nifty

Nifty’s daily looks like ABC is done, but internals suggests that it still needs a final sell off to make a bottom for WXY. A bull trap towards 17735-17810 can’t be ruled out before the final sell off.
Just analysis, reserve the right to be wrong.
₹Nifty > #Nifty
#NIFTY in Regression Channel.
— Piyush Chaudhry (@piyushchaudhry) April 30, 2022
A rectangular consolidation around the central Line of Best Fit, with no such reversal characteristics on display yet.
For it to revisit the upper band, odds would increase only on a break above ~17450.
Else, it's a slippery slope. pic.twitter.com/4OT7JM1TJY
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?