More from VVikas Kumaarr
#AdaniEnt -- Believe it or not, but there is no Exit at all since the long triggered around 260 level, for now 2800/3200 is I will be looking at.
This might be the answer why I prefer long on any Dip. https://t.co/ne0b96QH9s
This might be the answer why I prefer long on any Dip. https://t.co/ne0b96QH9s
#ADANIENT - Can we ? https://t.co/Zdb4fy0eSL pic.twitter.com/oPmNYax5of
— VVikas Kumaarr (@flyingvikas129) July 11, 2022
#DeepakNtr -- Updated Chart. https://t.co/Qsr4CQu7cK
#DeepakNtr - Can this be a Runway Gap and remain unfilled for some time going forward?
— VVikas Kumaarr (@flyingvikas129) July 31, 2021
Only market knows the right Answer.#flyingvikas #technical #nse #trading #Keepitsimple#Cadlestick #Gap #Breakout #BREAKOUTSTOCKS #stokes #trading pic.twitter.com/VFjbwGl0kD
More from Tatachemicals
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?