Reliance may be on the verge to give breakout of Cup and handle on charts.
If sustains well above 2800, then expecting levels of 2900/3100.
Support at zone of 2600-2700. Keep on radar..
#investing #Nifty #nifty50 #StockMarketindia #Reliance
More from The Anonymous Trader
Bajaj Finance at 6900 🤩🤩
Bajaj Finance cmp 6266, Breakout of double bottom pattern with bullish RSI divergence.
— The Anonymous Trader (@Anony_mous_Bull) July 22, 2022
Expecting levels of 6500/6750/ 7000. Support at zone of 5800-6000. Keep on radar.#BajajFinance #StockMarketindia #stocks #investing #Nifty #BREAKOUTSTOCKS pic.twitter.com/a5N0oj549T
More from Reliance
#RELIANCE-2512
1.272%(2516) Sustain rise above this level upside
Fibonacci extension
1.618%(2702)
#Probability
1.272%(2516) Sustain rise above this level upside
Fibonacci extension
1.618%(2702)
#Probability
#RELIANCE-2397
— Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) Stock Market FARMER (@idineshptl) September 20, 2021
Objective is to move higher towards
1.272%(2516) and 1.618%(2702)#Probability https://t.co/RLIJAJAHx1
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?