A big company called Saia had its stock go up by a lot (12.3%). Other companies also saw their stock prices go up, some more than others. One of them is Annexon, which did really well in a test and its stock went up by 40%. Core Scientific got bigger contracts with another company called AI Hyperscaler, so its stock price went up too (29%). Some other companies had their stock prices go up because they gave good updates or people thought they were doing well. Read from source...

- The article starts with an arbitrary date (Tuesday) without any context or explanation for why it is relevant. This creates confusion and sets a vague tone for the rest of the text.
- The title is misleading and inaccurate. It implies that all the mentioned stocks are moving higher on Tuesday, but the article only provides information about Saia and Annexon's performance on that day. The other stocks have different dates or no specific date given for their price changes. This is a clear example of clickbait journalism that tries to attract readers with false promises.
- The author uses vague and ambiguous language throughout the article, such as "jumped", "climbed", "rose", etc. These words do not convey any specific or meaningful information about the stocks' performance or reasons behind it. They are used to create a sense of excitement and urgency without backing it up with facts or evidence.
- The article lacks any analysis, comparison, or evaluation of the stocks' fundamentals, financials, or market trends. It simply lists the names and percentage changes of the stocks, without providing any context or explanation for why they are moving higher. This is a superficial and incomplete approach to investment journalism that does not help readers make informed decisions or understand the underlying factors affecting the stock prices.
- The article also fails to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as insider trading, short selling, or institutional ownership, that may influence the author's bias or credibility. This is a crucial ethical issue in financial journalism that should always be transparent and clear to readers.
- The article ends with an unrelated and irrelevant sentence about Upstart Holdings Inc, which has nothing to do with the main topic of the article. It seems like a random addition that does not contribute anything meaningful or relevant to the discussion. This is a poor writing technique that lowers the quality and coherence of the text.

Overall, this article is a poor example of investment journalism that relies on sensationalism, vagueness, and superficiality rather than providing valuable insights or information to readers. It does not meet the standards of accuracy, clarity, or credibility that are expected from financial news sources. I would strongly advise against using this article as a basis for making any investment decisions or relying on it as a reliable source of data or analysis.