Ascending Triangle breakout in #TATACONSUM after it took support near 61.8% pull back of last rise, RSI is supportive, if sustains above 756, can move towards 817 as indicated
Not a trading call, academic post
More from Techno Prince
More from Tataconsumer
You May Also Like
On the occasion of youtube 20k and Twitter 70k members
A small tribute/gift to members
Screeners
technical screeners - intraday and positional both
before proceeding - i have helped you , can i ask you so that it can help someone else too
thank you
positional one
run - find #stock - draw chart - find levels
1- Stocks closing daily 2% up from 5 days
https://t.co/gTZrYY3Nht
2- Weekly breakout
https://t.co/1f4ahEolYB
3- Breakouts in short term
https://t.co/BI4h0CdgO2
4- Bullish from last 5
intraday screeners
5- 15 minute Stock Breakouts
https://t.co/9eAo82iuNv
6- Intraday Buying seen in the past 15 minutes
https://t.co/XqAJKhLB5G
7- Stocks trading near day's high on 5 min chart with volume BO intraday
https://t.co/flHmm6QXmo
Thank you
A small tribute/gift to members
Screeners
technical screeners - intraday and positional both
before proceeding - i have helped you , can i ask you so that it can help someone else too
thank you
positional one
run - find #stock - draw chart - find levels
1- Stocks closing daily 2% up from 5 days
https://t.co/gTZrYY3Nht
2- Weekly breakout
https://t.co/1f4ahEolYB
3- Breakouts in short term
https://t.co/BI4h0CdgO2
4- Bullish from last 5
intraday screeners
5- 15 minute Stock Breakouts
https://t.co/9eAo82iuNv
6- Intraday Buying seen in the past 15 minutes
https://t.co/XqAJKhLB5G
7- Stocks trading near day's high on 5 min chart with volume BO intraday
https://t.co/flHmm6QXmo
Thank you
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?