#GraphiteIndia 208 --> 788
New high to banega! Mano Ya Na Mano!!
#GraphiteIndia has always recovered it's money. Mano Ya Na Mano! pic.twitter.com/rdV6Z5N1xq
— Nishant Kumar (@nishkumar1977) June 13, 2020
More from Nishant Kumar
More from Nishgraphite
#Graphite Could now be heading to 880 / 900 levels. https://t.co/qO6QzoYrBt
#Metals All in one place#Sail \U0001f680 #TataSteel\U0001f680 #Vedl\U0001f6eb #Jswsteel\U0001f680\U0001f680 #Graphite\U0001f680 #Heg\U0001f680
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) April 29, 2021
Very shortly I expect #Hindcopper as well, still at the launch pad. #Vedl #Hindalco yet to pick up pace.@caniravkaria https://t.co/eeOxZ7WWvo
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?