Barsaat ke mausam main ...
Tanhai ke aalam main ...
๐ผ๐
Abhi zinda hoon to jee leney jee leney do ...
Bhari barsaat main Tata Chai pee leney do ... @connectgurmeet
Invested from lower levels. Not for trading. No reco.
More from Conviction | Patience
2. Put your neck on the line (invest your hard earned capital - experience comes by paying tuition fee)
3. Read non-investing books as well (Psychology, history, biographies or whatever non-fiction you like)
4. Read this :
https://t.co/6z3HvtKakL
How to augment your Sector knowledge? Follow these 5 points \U0001f447
— Conviction | Patience (@unseenvalue) May 18, 2019
1. The Five Rules For Successful Stock Investing by Pat Dorsey
2. Con Calls - as many as you can in that sector
3. Annual Reports - as many as you can in that sector
4. Interact with trade/channel partners
5. AGMs pic.twitter.com/2ZOx3nkC4i
The Almanack of Naval Ravikant
The Psychology of Money
The Wealth of common sense
Masterclass with super investors
100 Baggers
Which are the books in your re-read list?
— Investment Books (@InvestmentBook1) October 8, 2021
Mine as Follows \U0001f447
The Psychology of Money
The Wealth of common sense
100 Baggers
Once upon a wall street
Masterclass with super investors
Atomic Habits
Richer, Wiser, Happier
More from Tataconsumer
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" thingโphysical 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?