IRCTC below 640 today !
Have no intention to enjoy the misery of fellow market participants but 'Maine Bola Tha' !
#ProfGyan - If a freak low gets made some day, Stocks/Indices always try to visit it at least once (seekh lo, mere mentorship course ka launch kuch pukka nahi hai) https://t.co/3B6e2nMx0y
Two prophecies about IRCTC:
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) May 1, 2022
1. It would touch 640 someday
2. It would get expelled from F&O https://t.co/qJ04hG0qFH pic.twitter.com/TPUBSQFW1y
More from Professor
Jab tak ki meri book nahi aati, ye kar lo:
1. Go through Zerodha Varsity chapters on Technical Analysis at least 2 times.
2. Then read 'Technical Analysis Explained' by Martin Pring
3. Finally read 'Price Action bar by bar' by Al Books (Not for casual reader).
1. Go through Zerodha Varsity chapters on Technical Analysis at least 2 times.
2. Then read 'Technical Analysis Explained' by Martin Pring
3. Finally read 'Price Action bar by bar' by Al Books (Not for casual reader).
Sir @DillikiBiili , could you please suggest a book for technical analysis ?
— Pawan Yadav (@pawan_yadav86) March 25, 2022
More from Screeners
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?