|
please write a summary when you get time. I think it is worthy your time![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
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*
π¨β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π¨β¬π¨π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 4/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
π¨π¨β¬π¨π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π¨β¬π¨π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 5/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬π©β¬π©β¬
β¬π©π¨π©β¬
π¨π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 900 3/6
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬β¬π¨β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
π¨π¨β¬π¨β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
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*
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
π¨β¬π¨π¨β¬
π¨π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
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
π¨β¬π¨π¨β¬
π¨π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
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.
|
|
|
|
|
They gave the job to AI.
Iβve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
Iβm begging you for the benefit of everyone, donβt be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a fundamental property of the Internet: You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available.
If you really need to have something documented, make a copy of that web page. It may be difficult sometimes; you may have to revert to PrntScrn - Save Page as... may not capture all you want to save. Always check the saved page.
Updating news articles is common practice with web newspapers. Sometimes, when reporting from an ongoing event, they put something along the lines of 'This story will be updated', but often they do not. Often, the 'breaking news' updates the first few paragraphs of the story, but if you read to the bottom, there can be a lot down there that they didn't remember to update - such as 'Due to the car accident, the E6 is closed for all traffic', but the (updated) headline and first few sentences declare 'E6 is now open after having being closed for two hours'.
Sometimes, when revising 'facts', they add a small note indicating that 'A previous version of this story said so-and-so. This has been updated to such-and-such'.
The one newspaper that really p me off was one where I could provoke an update. Officially, they were open to reader comments. If you made a comment that was in conflict with the newspaper's views, the article would be 'updated'. Several times I compared the article as it was at the time when I made my comment, with my comment displayed, showing that it was accepted, with the version marked 'Last updated at ...', and not a single character was changed, except for the 'Last updated' time.
And the list of comments were empty. Each update version had its own chain of comments. So they could pretend to accept disagreeing comments, while wiping unwanted comments by making a no-changes 'update'. If asked, they could present a technical explanation ('Every revision has its own comment chain - that's just how it is!'. And it was true: The new revision got a new URL, so if I saved the URL to the revision I commented on, I could use it to retrieve the version with my unwanted comment still in the comment chain.
I think it is far more honest to simply declare that 'We do not accept comments in disagreement with our views', and either inform the commenter the reason why he was rejected, or leaving an entry in the comment chain indicating that a comment was censored. Preferably both.
|
|
|
|
|
re/ "You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available." i recently learned the Wayback Machine is useful . it even has copies of my own minor website of many years prior .
|
|
|
|
|
If it is "semi-stable", Wayback maybe of use. Often it is not. Observe how many snapshots there is of an article: Sometimes, they come weeks or months apart. Compare the time of the first snapshot with the publication date for the newspaper story: The story may have been through several modifications before the the first Wayback snapshot.
There are lots of web pages not available on Wayback. It crawls from one page to another through links, and if none of its already known pages link to some local web newspaper, Wayback will not discover it. There used to be an entry in Wayback's main page, something like 'Please index this web page!' It may still be somewhere, but I am not sure where (I haven't spent much time looking!)
|
|
|
|
|
trΓΈnderen wrote: You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available
This, IMHO, is one the serious deficiencies of Internet (and also its strength). Nothing is cast in stone on the Internet, everything is flaky.
In the days of the hardcopy prints from the printing press, creating a second version was a lot of effort. Now, soft copies can be updated in a trice.
modified 6-Dec-23 3:01am.
|
|
|
|
|
"You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available."
clap clap - well said sir. Interestingly, for large purchases from Amazon or any other place, I make a screen grab of the deal. I've had several occasions where the terms just change out from the day before as if by magic. It's well know that Amazon uses the shopping model they have built for you and dynamically change prices. I can easily see articles and what not subtly modified.
Charlie Gilley
βThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.β BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
