|
Eggs fly very nicely, but they need to work on their landing skills.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt this vitally important research was funded with tax money, right?
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Because chickens are such great flyers.
|
|
|
|
|
I find this video, but it is in Hindi.
How can I understand it?
Can someone explain or put his conclusion here?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Although somewhat broken, if you play the video with auto translated subtitles, you may get the gist of it.
Other wise I can put a summary for you when I find the time to watch the whole video.
|
|
|
|
|
please write a summary when you get time. I think it is worthy your time
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
And looking for an English video on the subject, or text, was not applicable ?
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
if you wish to make a project out of it the cc text which by the way can be placed wherever you wish can be screen captured then w/ OCR results sent to Google Translate and of course accept the summed errors .
|
|
|
|
|
Learn Hindi!
|
|
|
|
|
Google says there's 48 officially recognized dialects of Hindi.
One of the articles near the top of that search goes on to say India has a total of 19,569 languages and dialects.
Where should one start?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Where should one start?
42?
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Where should one start? By the first one of course.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
@Southmountain here is the summary.
Gann Rule
Price can be square from
1. Low
2. High
3. Range
Suppose a stock price went from 0 to 100. So 0 is the low, 100 is the high and all the values in between is the range.
In this video he talks about the range.
Instructor says that in his books Gann comes back to 2 things time and again and that too instrument specific. Stop-loss and backtesting. So you need to backtest your instrument to see whether a rule applies or not (no idea what he's talking about).
How to calculate.
From range, you need to find 4 swings, 2 highs and 2 lows.
If the trend is upward then we take the higher high and higher low. If it is downtrend then we take the lower high and lower low. This will give you the 4 swing points.
Let's say H1 and H2 are the two highs and L1 and L2 are the two lows.
1. Calculate time difference between H1 and H2.
2. Calculate time difference between L1 and L2.
3. Calculate time difference between H1 and L2 (highest high to lowest low)
4. Calcualte time difference between L1 and H2 (mid low to mid high)
Lets call them A,B,C and D
(filler content for few minutes)
Calculating the reversal date.
We take a high low chart (in his example he takes the NIFTY 50 index)
when you identify the 4 swings (looks like a harry potter lightning bolt) you have the 2 highs and two lows.
In the video (14:36) the H1 is 4 April 2022, L1 is 12 May 2022, H2 is 3 June 2022 and L2 is 17 June 2022.
A = DateDiff(H1 and H2) = 60 days
B = DateDiff(L1 and L1) = 36 days
C = DateDiff(H1 and L2) = 74 days
D = DateDiff(H2 and L1) = 22 days
Now to calculate the reversal dates he simply adds the days to L2. In this case the 4 dates are
L2+ A = 16 Aug 2022
L2+ B = 23 Jul 2022
L2+ C = 30 Aug 2022
L2+ D = 09 Jul 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks a million for your help!
I am really surprised for our codeproject community's support!
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6*
🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 4/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 5/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟨🟩⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years. Yes, RSS feeds are still a thing. I wouldn't have it any other way either, given that nobody places ads on those feeds (or perhaps rather, don't bother to, for some reason). But that's not the point.
I've been noticing for quite a while now that they'll often re-surface old articles - days, weeks, even months old - articles they've already published before, but republish them with updated bits and pieces - adjust some numbers, add some details that weren't there before, that sort of thing. Some of these (the same articles) show up repeatedly time and time again.
I never find these to be of particular interest (no matter what got updated), so I just delete these "new" entries that show up as unread at the bottom of the chronological list.
I really wonder who those updates are there for. RSS has fallen out of favor, so very few people should even notice. I can only assume that, among the population at large, only people searching for an article on a specific topic might find them, and read the latest version as if it were the first published instance (and really, how might one even know, unless they're marked as such, which they never are?) What's the point? After a while, if something's really worth bringing up again, doesn't it warrant having a brand new article written instead? If it's not, then presumably you're concluding people shouldn't care enough, so as a reporter, you should just let those old articles go...
I don't like to see history rewritten. If it has to do with fact-checking, or new details having come to light, I've seen newspapers publish follow-up articles, corrections as part of an addendum, that sort of thing. These online articles however don't get an addendum; the original gets modified and then passed off as if these were "as originally written".
I'm not sure whether this is common and other news sources do the same, as this is the only news feed I subscribe to. And they're the only ones who do it.
Anyone know anything about journalism that can shed some light as to what the real motive might be?
I'm sure I'm reading too much into this, as the topics in those revised articles are generally rather benign.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years. They are probably having to correct the bits that are incorrect/downright lies.
|
|
|
|