H&S tops with ascending/descending necklines https://t.co/cmRRHp5rlh
Sir Edwards & Magee discussed sloping necklines in H&S in their classical work. I am considering this breakdown by Affle as an H&S top breakdown with a target open of 770.
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) May 25, 2022
The target also coincides with support at the exact same level. pic.twitter.com/n84kSgkg4q
More from The_Chartist 📈
AWL - look at the ranges of contraction on the chart https://t.co/2XMhqZQu8X
Borosil Renewables - Patterns like these must be looked at carefully and must be kept on the radar. Herein price is contracting which generally signifies shifting of hands (from weak to strong). If you go wrong, the risk is limited in these. pic.twitter.com/iqyoeslZjy
— The_Chartist \U0001f4c8 (@charts_zone) July 12, 2021
More from Screeners
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?
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.