bhai, I don't know what will nifty doing next but I am ready👇
Stock below 10.2 first time after big run - Pelo
Stock hit dc 50 low first time - Pelo
Stock getting rejection from 10.2- Lelo
Stock getting hit dc 50 high- Lelo
fresh maal milega, n move will be sharp n rewarding👍
On which side, if I may ask
— Surjeet Singh (@er_surjeet25) October 28, 2021
More from Trendmyfriend
More from Screeners
This scan will give you linear/smooth/non-choppy trends which are great for pullback trades for working people.
#BroTip
#BroTip
If you want to trade only stocks with established trend/momentum, then you can look for stocks which have never(or barely did) closed below a certain MA (say 50MA) in the last say 50 days.
— Manas Arora (@iManasArora) November 8, 2021
There are countless ways to run scans. Just have to get creative. #BroTip
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?