Binary Option Definition and Example

Binary Options

Binary options subreddit to share strategies and discuss anything related to the BO industry: regulation, scams, strategies, greeks, news, lucky trades, etc.
[link]

Binary Options Review Panther

Welcome to the Binary Options Review Panther Reddit! Our passion is Binary Option trading and Binary Options. We strive to tell people the TRUTH about Binary Options. We write Binary Option scam reviews for the latest Binary Options to warn people about the many Binary Option scams on the market. We also write Binary Option reviews on quality Binary Option software and Binary Option Brokers as well. Good luck trading, Julia Armstrong Binary Options Review Panther
[link]

The official placiibo app subreddit!

The current purpose of this subreddit is to discuss the developments of the placiibo TestFlight and gathering beta feedback.
[link]

Binary options question

Hello guys :D
i just wanted to know what do you think about binary options :(

thanks :D
submitted by Akromatx to Daytrading [link] [comments]

US Broker/ Auto Trader/ Binary Options Questions

Hello, I am just now getting into trading/forex and have a couple questions.
One: I am in the US and am a looking for a repuatble broker. I've searched the forum and see people reccomending Nadex but it seems like a website for doing the actual binary trading and not as a broker. I am looking for a site that can sync with a tool (Mikes Auto Trader) so I can use the software to help with trades.
Two: Does anyone here use softwares to help with Binary Trading? If so, what have the results been? After seeing a lot of fishy programs and the most reliable service seems like Mikes Auto Trader. Anyone here use it or know someone who does?
Three: How do withdraws from my broker into my bank account work? Do I need to give the broker bank information or just a debit card number?
Four: How do I sync a broker with a Auto Trading System?
Sorry for all the nooby questions, there just seems to be a lot of unreliable infromation out there on Binary Options trading. Thanks for the help!
edit: I am in the US, and I've read that a lot of brokers dont accept traders from the US, so if anyone has any reputable ones that do I would appreciate it.
submitted by DCoop15 to Forex [link] [comments]

Sihle Ngobese: LOL...never get in the way of the #Lockdown zealots. To them; - no other options exist, - the lockdown & economy issue is a binary one, - and government is “all knowing”. 🙄🙄🙄 Beware of such fools. Keep questioning, and keep learning!

Sihle Ngobese: LOL...never get in the way of the #Lockdown zealots. To them; - no other options exist, - the lockdown & economy issue is a binary one, - and government is “all knowing”. 🙄🙄🙄 Beware of such fools. Keep questioning, and keep learning! submitted by TweetArchiveBot to LibertyRSA [link] [comments]

Question: Is there a defi protocol to to trade binary options on eth yet?

Are there any contracts to buy binary options on ethereum? It's something that I'm thinking about making but wouldn't want to go through the trouble if that already exists. I've come across this https://bandprotocol.com which seems to have been a binary option trading platform on eth but I guess they pivoted hard or something because there's no trace of that on their website. Thank you.
submitted by polynomno to defi [link] [comments]

You can teach, or you can have a spouse. A multiple-choice question with a binary answer option.

You can teach, or you can have a spouse. A multiple-choice question with a binary answer option. submitted by ChalkButter to AirForce [link] [comments]

http://twitter.com/forex_in_world/status/1166398481642250240what is the Binary option? with question answers - https://t.co/mbmcfqr7MU - #BINARYOPTION #BINARYOPTIONLEGIT #BINARYOPTIONSCAM - #forextrading #forex #investing pic.twitter.com/82ddH9dXgz— FOREX IN WORLD (@forex_in_world) August 27, 2019

submitted by Red-its to forextweet [link] [comments]

http://twitter.com/forex_in_world/status/1156568873543655426what is the Binary option? with question answers - https://t.co/4yxYjQZWRH - #BINARYOPTION #BINARYOPTIONLEGIT #BINARYOPTIONSCAM - #forextrading #forex #investing pic.twitter.com/tf2Xh6ATGQ— FOREX IN WORLD (@forex_in_world) July 31, 2019

submitted by Red-its to forextweet [link] [comments]

Question about Resolved Market (Will Ethereum close March 31, 2019 (UTC) below $100 (USD)? || ETH/USD < $100 MAR 31 2019 BINARY PUT OPTION.)

I have negative Yes Shares for the above market. My understanding (and my intention) was to but No shares, or in other words bet that Ethereum would not close below $10 on 3/31/19. So from my understanding I won. However the market is listed as resolved but I don't have any "outstanding returns." It still has a button at the bottom of the market that says Open Orders and it looks like I can sell it.

Sorry for the noob question, but have I won and what's going on?

Thanks,

BDC
submitted by bdc253 to Augur [link] [comments]

http://twitter.com/forex_in_world/status/1147690320395743237what is the Binary option? with question answers - https://t.co/dIn3Jq7csH - #BINARYOPTION #BINARYOPTIONLEGIT #BINARYOPTIONSCAM - #forextrading #forex #investing pic.twitter.com/qgf1FtP3Ng— FOREX IN WORLD (@forex_in_world) July 7, 2019

submitted by Red-its to forextweet [link] [comments]

@forex_in_world : what is the Binary option? with question answers - https://t.co/w0X1xA36X4 - #BINARYOPTION #BINARYOPTIONLEGIT #BINARYOPTIONSCAM - #forextrading #forex #investing https://t.co/ppZKyp0tya

submitted by Red-its to forex__in__world [link] [comments]

http://twitter.com/forex_in_world/status/1144730939307757568what is the Binary option? with question answers - https://t.co/dk3nuFavAH - #BINARYOPTION #BINARYOPTIONLEGIT #BINARYOPTIONSCAM - #forextrading #forex #investing pic.twitter.com/ixXLukxN9G— FOREX IN WORLD (@forex_in_world) June 28, 2019

submitted by Red-its to forextweet [link] [comments]

what is the Binary option? with question answers » FOREX IN WORLD

submitted by Red-its to binaryoption [link] [comments]

what is the Binary option? with question answers

what is the Binary option? with question answers submitted by Red-its to forex__in__world [link] [comments]

[Frances Coppola] Question: how will the binary options ban be enforced? Retail investors don't even know what binary options are (wh… https://t.co/T2LOZM2IC2

[Frances Coppola] Question: how will the binary options ban be enforced? Retail investors don't even know what binary options are (wh… https://t.co/T2LOZM2IC2 submitted by jeff98379 to newstweetfeed [link] [comments]

Question on Binary Options & Nadex?

If Nadex doesn't bet against a Strike price then what price do people bet against? That being said, how do legitimate foreign Binary trading services reliably make money if the bets are against the house and not other investors?
submitted by I_Zeig_I to investing [link] [comments]

Question on the legality of over seas Binary Option trading?

TL:DR; Guy shows me his balance sheet, he's managed to amass a portfolio of over $100K on "Binary Options". Said he has a 98% success rate and pulls over 5K a month on average. I didn't believe him, he has the data to back this up. Since 1 Jan he's made 8K alone. Kicker is, he say's it's all oversea's and none of the money is taxable.
Questions:
1) Money earned in overseas investments is still earned income, yes?
2) Is Binary Option trading seriously this profitable, or is there something I'm missing?
Longer story:
So this guy in my circle starts humble bragging about his "guaranteed method" (red flag) so I inquire. Turns out he shows me his balance sheet (on a website called myfxbook) and he's managed to amass a small fortune. In 300+ trades he has profited in 98% of them (literally looking at his balance sheet right now.) Sure he has some losses but his NET gains are usually 5K a month. Am I crazy? Is this real life?
He goes on to say it's all oversea's, and that none of it is taxed unless he withdraws his money. He also say's it's not investing, it's "trading with another person" and that the government tried to shut it down for being illegal gambling but it's still allowed.
Can you guys help me make sense of all this?
submitted by Speck72 to investing [link] [comments]

[Repost] [Academic] Texting in Conflict Resolution and Discussing Sensitive Issues across relationship types. "please explain" questions are optional. 75 Questions.Approx. 20-30 min to complete. (18+, M/F/Non-binary)

submitted by allcseniorrsrch to SampleSize [link] [comments]

[Academic] Texting in Conflict Resolution and Discussing Sensitive Issues across relationship types. "please explain" questions are optional. Approx. 20-25 min to complete. (18+, M/F/Non-binary)

submitted by allcseniorrsrch to SampleSize [link] [comments]

I'm a nonbinary researcher and I am curious the most inclusive way to ask gender?

I am an engineering education grad student that focuses on assessment- so currently I write surveys.
I am trying to figure out the best way to ask gender.
My professor has ...
What is your gender? Multiple choice: male, female, trans man, trans woman, gender nonconforming, othedo not wish to disclose
I have
What is your gender? Multiple choice: male, female, trans man, trans woman, nonbinary, othedo not wish to disclose
I was thinking as an alternative...
What is your gender? Check all that apply: male, female, transgender, nonbinary, othedo not wish to disclose.
Thoughts?
submitted by the_nat_strikes_back to asktransgender [link] [comments]

(TOI/II) Israeli securities regulator questioned by European colleagues on binary options fraud

submitted by Mukhasim to UMukhasimAutoNews [link] [comments]

The Next Processor Change is Within ARMs Reach

As you may have seen, I sent the following Tweet: “The Apple ARM MacBook future is coming, maybe sooner than people expect” https://twitter.com/choco_bit/status/1266200305009676289?s=20
Today, I would like to further elaborate on that.
tl;dr Apple will be moving to Arm based macs in what I believe are 4 stages, starting around 2015 and ending around 2023-2025: Release of T1 chip Macbooks, release of T2 chip Macbooks, Release of at least one lower end model Arm Macbook, and transitioning full lineup to Arm. Reasons for each are below.
Apple is very likely going to switch to switch their CPU platform to their in-house silicon designs with an ARM architecture. This understanding is a fairly common amongst various Apple insiders. Here is my personal take on how this switch will happen and be presented to the consumer.
The first question would likely be “Why would Apple do this again?”. Throughout their history, Apple has already made two other storied CPU architecture switches - first from the Motorola 68k to PowerPC in the early 90s, then from PowerPC to Intel in the mid 2000s. Why make yet another? Here are the leading reasons:
A common refrain heard on the Internet is the suggestion that Apple should switch to using CPUs made by AMD, and while this has been considered internally, it will most likely not be chosen as the path forward, even for their megalithic giants like the Mac Pro. Even though AMD would mitigate Intel’s current set of problems, it does nothing to help the issue of the x86_64 architecture’s problems and inefficiencies, on top of jumping to a platform that doesn’t have a decade of proven support behind it. Why spend a lot of effort re-designing and re- optimizing for AMD’s platform when you can just put that effort into your own, and continue the vertical integration Apple is well-known for?
I believe that the internal development for the ARM transition started around 2015/2016 and is considered to be happening in 4 distinct stages. These are not all information from Apple insiders; some of these these are my own interpretation based off of information gathered from supply-chain sources, examination of MacBook schematics, and other indicators from Apple.

Stage1 (from 2014/2015 to 2017):

The rollout of computers with Apple’s T1 chip as a coprocessor. This chip is very similar to Apple’s T8002 chip design, which was used for the Apple Watch Series 1 and Series 2. The T1 is primarily present on the first TouchID enabled Macs, 2016 and 2017 model year MacBook Pros.
Considering the amount of time required to design and validate a processor, this stage most likely started around 2014 or 2015, with early experimentation to see whether an entirely new chip design would be required, or if would be sufficient to repurpose something in the existing lineup. As we can see, the general purpose ARM processors aren’t a one- trick pony.
To get a sense of the decision making at the time, let’s look back a bit. The year is 2016, and we're witnessing the beginning of stagnation of Intel processor lineup. There is not a lot to look forward to other than another “+” being added to the 14nm fabrication process. The MacBook Pro has used the same design for many years now, and its age is starting to show. Moving to AMD is still very questionable, as they’ve historically not been able to match Intel’s performance or functionality, especially at the high end, and since the “Ryzen” lineup is still unreleased, there is absolutely no benchmarks or other data to show they are worth consideration, and AMD’s most recent line of “Bulldozer” processors were very poorly received. Now is probably as good a time as any to begin experimenting with the in-house ARM designs, but it’s not time to dive into the deep end yet, our chips are not nearly mature enough to compete, and it’s not yet certain how long Intel will be stuck in the mud. As well, it is widely understood that Apple and Intel have an exclusivity contract in exchange for advantageous pricing. Any transition would take considerable time and effort, and since there are no current viable alternative to Intel, the in-house chips will need to advance further, and breaching a contract with Intel is too great a risk. So it makes sense to start with small deployments, to extend the timeline, stretch out to the end of the contract, and eventually release a real banger of a Mac.
Thus, the 2016 Touch Bar MacBooks were born, alongside the T1 chip mentioned earlier. There are good reasons for abandoning the piece of hardware previously used for a similar purpose, the SMC or System Management Controller. I suspect that the biggest reason was to allow early analysis of the challenges that would be faced migrating Mac built- in peripherals and IO to an ARM-based controller, as well as exploring the manufacturing, power, and performance results of using the chips across a broad deployment, and analyzing any early failure data, then using this to patch any issues, enhance processes, and inform future designs looking towards the 2nd stage.
The former SMC duties now moved to T1 includes things like
The T1 chip also communicates with a number of other controllers to manage a MacBook’s behavior. Even though it’s not a very powerful CPU by modern standards, it’s already responsible for a large chunk of the machine’s operation. Moving control of these peripherals to the T1 chip also brought about the creation of the fabled BridgeOS software, a shrunken-down watchOS-based system that operates fully independently of macOS and the primary Intel processor.
BridgeOS is the first step for Apple’s engineering teams to begin migrating underlying systems and services to integrate with the ARM processor via BridgeOS, and it allowed internal teams to more easily and safely develop and issue firmware updates. Since BridgeOS is based on a standard and now well-known system, it means that they can leverage existing engineering expertise to flesh out the T1’s development, rather than relying on the more arcane and specialized SMC system, which operates completely differently and requires highly specific knowledge to work with. It also allows reuse of the same fabrication pipeline used for Apple Watch processors, and eliminated the need to have yet another IC design for the SMC, coming from a separate source, to save a bit on cost.
Also during this time, on the software side, “Project Marzipan”, today Catalyst, came into existence. We'll get to this shortly.
For the most part, this Stage 1 went without any major issues. There were a few firmware problems at first during the product launch, but they were quickly solved with software updates. Now that engineering teams have had experience building for, manufacturing, and shipping the T1 systems, Stage 2 would begin.

Stage2 (2018-Present):

Stage 2 encompasses the rollout of Macs with the T2 coprocessor, replacing the T1. This includes a much wider lineup, including MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, starting with 2018 models, MacBook Air starting with 2018 models, the iMac Pro, the 2019 Mac Pro, as well as Mac Mini starting in 2018.
With this iteration, the more powerful T8012 processor design was used, which is a further revision of the T8010 design that powers the A10 series processors used in the iPhone 7. This change provided a significant increase in computational ability and brought about the integration of even more devices into T2. In addition to the T1’s existing responsibilities, T2 now controls:
Those last 2 points are crucial for Stage 2. Under this new paradigm, the vast majority of the Mac is now under the control of an in-house ARM processor. Stage 2 also brings iPhone-grade hardware security to the Mac. These T2 models also incorporated a supported DFU (Device Firmware Update, more commonly “recovery mode”), which acts similarly to the iPhone DFU mode and allows restoration of the BridgeOS firmware in the event of corruption (most commonly due to user-triggered power interruption during flashing).
Putting more responsibility onto the T2 again allows for Apple’s engineering teams to do more early failure analysis on hardware and software, monitor stability of these machines, experiment further with large-scale production and deployment of this ARM platform, as well as continue to enhance the silicon for Stage 3.
A few new user-visible features were added as well in this stage, such as support for the passive “Hey Siri” trigger, and offloading image and video transcoding to the T2 chip, which frees up the main Intel processor for other applications. BridgeOS was bumped to 2.0 to support all of these changes and the new chip.
On the macOS software side, what was internally known as Project Marzipan was first demonstrated to the public. Though it was originally discovered around 2017, and most likely began development and testing within later parts of Stage 1, its effects could be seen in 2018 with the release of iPhone apps, now running on the Mac using the iOS SDKs: Voice Recorder, Apple News, Home, Stocks, and more, with an official announcement and public release at WWDC in 2019. Catalyst would come to be the name of Marzipan used publicly. This SDK release allows app developers to easily port iOS apps to run on macOS, with minimal or no code changes, and without needing to develop separate versions for each. The end goal is to allow developers to submit a single version of an app, and allow it to work seamlessly on all Apple platforms, from Watch to Mac. At present, iOS and iPadOS apps are compiled for the full gamut of ARM instruction sets used on those devices, while macOS apps are compiled for x86_64. The logical next step is to cross this bridge, and unify the instruction sets.
With this T2 release, the new products using it have not been quite as well received as with the T1. Many users have noticed how this change contributes further towards machines with limited to no repair options outside of Apple’s repair organization, as well as some general issues with bugs in the T2.
Products with the T2 also no longer have the “Lifeboat” connector, which was previously present on 2016 and 2017 model Touch Bar MacBook Pro. This connector allowed a certified technician to plug in a device called a CDM Tool (Customer Data Migration Tool) to recover data off of a machine that was not functional. The removal of this connector limits the options for data recovery in the event of a problem, and Apple has never offered any data recovery service, meaning that a irreparable failure of the T2 chip or the primary board would result in complete data loss, in part due to the strong encryption provided by the T2 chip (even if the data got off, the encryption keys were lost with the T2 chip). The T2 also brought about the linkage of component serial numbers of certain internal components, such as the solid state storage, display, and trackpad, among other components. In fact, many other controllers on the logic board are now also paired to the T2, such as the WiFi and Bluetooth controller, the PMIC (Power Management Controller), and several other components. This is the exact same system used on newer iPhone models and is quite familiar to technicians who repair iPhone logic boards. While these changes are fantastic for device security and corporate and enterprise users, allowing for a very high degree of assurance that devices will refuse to boot if tampered with in any way - even from storied supply chain attacks, or other malfeasance that can be done with physical access to a machine - it has created difficulty with consumers who more often lack the expertise or awareness to keep critical data backed up, as well as the funds to perform the necessary repairs from authorized repair providers. Other issues reported that are suspected to be related to T2 are audio “cracking” or distortion on the internal speakers, and the BridgeOS becoming corrupt following a firmware update resulting in a machine that can’t boot.
I believe these hiccups will be properly addressed once macOS is fully integrated with the ARM platform. This stage of the Mac is more like a chimera of an iPhone and an Intel based computer. Technically, it does have all of the parts of an iPhone present within it, cellular radio aside, and I suspect this fusion is why these issues exist.
Recently, security researchers discovered an underlying security problem present within the Boot ROM code of the T1 and T2 chip. Due to being the same fundamental platform as earlier Apple Watch and iPhone processors, they are vulnerable to the “checkm8” exploit (CVE-2019-8900). Because of how these chips operate in a Mac, firmware modifications caused by use of the exploit will persist through OS reinstallation and machine restarts. Both the T1 and T2 chips are always on and running, though potentially in a heavily reduced power usage state, meaning the only way to clean an exploited machine is to reflash the chip, triggering a restart, or to fully exhaust or physically disconnect the battery to flush its memory. Fortunately, this exploit cannot be done remotely and requires physical access to the Mac for an extended duration, as well as a second Mac to perform the change, so the majority of users are relatively safe. As well, with a very limited execution environment and access to the primary system only through a “mailbox” protocol, the utility of exploiting these chips is extremely limited. At present, there is no known malware that has used this exploit. The proper fix will come with the next hardware revision, and is considered a low priority due to the lack of practical usage of running malicious code on the coprocessor.
At the time of writing, all current Apple computers have a T2 chip present, with the exception of the 2019 iMac lineup. This will change very soon with the expected release of the 2020 iMac lineup at WWDC, which will incorporate a T2 coprocessor as well.
Note: from here on, this turns entirely into speculation based on info gathered from a variety of disparate sources.
Right now, we are in the final steps of Stage 2. There are strong signs that an a MacBook (12”) with an ARM main processor will be announced this year at WWDC (“One more thing...”), at a Fall 2020 event, Q1 2021 event, or WWDC 2021. Based on the lack of a more concrete answer, WWDC2020 will likely not see it, but I am open to being wrong here.

Stage3 (Present/2021 - 2022/2023):

Stage 3 involves the first version of at least one fully ARM-powered Mac into Apple’s computer lineup.
I expect this will come in the form of the previously-retired 12” MacBook. There are rumors that Apple is still working internally to perfect the infamous Butterfly keyboard, and there are also signs that Apple is developing an A14x based processors with 8-12 cores designed specifically for use as the primary processor in a Mac. It makes sense that this model could see the return of the Butterfly keyboard, considering how thin and light it is intended to be, and using an A14x processor would make it will be a very capable, very portable machine, and should give customers a good taste of what is to come.
Personally, I am excited to test the new 12" “ARMbook”. I do miss my own original 12", even with all the CPU failure issues those older models had. It was a lovely form factor for me.
It's still not entirely known whether the physical design of these will change from the retired version, exactly how many cores it will have, the port configuration, etc. I have also heard rumors about the 12” model possibly supporting 5G cellular connectivity natively thanks to the A14 series processor. All of this will most likely be confirmed soon enough.
This 12” model will be the perfect stepping stone for stage 3, since Apple’s ARM processors are not yet a full-on replacement for Intel’s full processor lineup, especially at the high end, in products such as the upcoming 2020 iMac, iMac Pro, 16” MacBook Pro, and the 2019 Mac Pro.
Performance of Apple’s ARM platform compared to Intel has been a big point of contention over the last couple years, primarily due to the lack of data representative of real-world desktop usage scenarios. The iPad Pro and other models with Apple’s highest-end silicon still lack the ability to execute a lot of high end professional applications, so data about anything more than video editing and photo editing tasks benchmarks quickly becomes meaningless. While there are completely synthetic benchmarks like Geekbench, Antutu, and others, to try and bridge the gap, they are very far from being accurate or representative of the real real world performance in many instances. Even though the Apple ARM processors are incredibly powerful, and I do give constant praise to their silicon design teams, there still just isn’t enough data to show how they will perform for real-world desktop usage scenarios, and synthetic benchmarks are like standardized testing: they only show how good a platform is at running the synthetic benchmark. This type of benchmark stresses only very specific parts of each chip at a time, rather than how well it does a general task, and then boil down the complexity and nuances of each chip into a single numeric score, which is not a remotely accurate way of representing processors with vastly different capabilities and designs. It would be like gauging how well a person performs a manual labor task based on averaging only the speed of every individual muscle in the body, regardless of if, or how much, each is used. A specific group of muscles being stronger or weaker than others could wildly skew the final result, and grossly misrepresent performance of the person as a whole. Real world program performance will be the key in determining the success and future of this transition, and it will have to be great on this 12" model, but not just in a limited set of tasks, it will have to be great at *everything*. It is intended to be the first Horseman of the Apocalypse for the Intel Mac, and it better behave like one. Consumers have been expecting this, especially after 15 years of Intel processors, the continued advancement of Apple’s processors, and the decline of Intel’s market lead.
The point of this “demonstration” model is to ease both users and developers into the desktop ARM ecosystem slowly. Much like how the iPhone X paved the way for FaceID-enabled iPhones, this 12" model will pave the way towards ARM Mac systems. Some power-user type consumers may complain at first, depending on the software compatibility story, then realize it works just fine since the majority of the computer users today do not do many tasks that can’t be accomplished on an iPad or lower end computer. Apple needs to gain the public’s trust for basic tasks first, before they will be able to break into the market of users performing more hardcore or “Pro” tasks. This early model will probably not be targeted at these high-end professionals, which will allow Apple to begin to gather early information about the stability and performance of this model, day to day usability, developmental issues that need to be addressed, hardware failure analysis, etc. All of this information is crucial to Stage 4, or possibly later parts of Stage 3.
The 2 biggest concerns most people have with the architecture change is app support and Bootcamp.
Any apps released through the Mac App Store will not be a problem. Because App Store apps are submitted as LLVM IR (“Bitcode”), the system can automatically download versions compiled and optimized for ARM platforms, similar to how App Thinning on iOS works. For apps distributed outside the App Store, thing might be more tricky. There are a few ways this could go:
As for Bootcamp, while ARM-compatible versions of Windows do exist and are in development, they come with their own similar set of app support problems. Microsoft has experimented with emulating x86_64 on their ARM-based Surface products, and some other OEMs have created their own Windows-powered ARM laptops, but with very little success. Performance is a problem across the board, with other ARM silicon not being anywhere near as advanced, and with the majority of apps in the Windows ecosystem that were not developed in-house at Microsoft running terribly due to the x86_64 emulation software. If Bootcamp does come to the early ARM MacBook, it more than likely will run like very poorly for anything other than Windows UWP apps. There is a high chance it will be abandoned entirely until Windows becomes much more friendly to the architecture.
I believe this will also be a very crucial turning point for the MacBook lineup as a whole. At present, the iPad Pro paired with the Magic Keyboard is, in many ways, nearly identical to a laptop, with the biggest difference being the system software itself. While Apple executives have outright denied plans of merging the iPad and MacBook line, that could very well just be a marketing stance, shutting the down rumors in anticipation of a well-executed surprise. I think that Apple might at least re-examine the possibility of merging Macs and iPads in some capacity, but whether they proceed or not could be driven by consumer reaction to both products. Do they prefer the feel and usability of macOS on ARM, and like the separation of both products? Is there success across the industry of the ARM platform, both at the lower and higher end of the market? Do users see that iPadOS and macOS are just 2 halves of the same coin? Should there be a middle ground, and a new type of product similar to the Surface Book, but running macOS? Should Macs and iPads run a completely uniform OS? Will iPadOS ever see exposed the same sort of UNIX-based tools for IT administrators and software developers that macOS has present? These are all very real questions that will pop up in the near future.
The line between Stage 3 and Stage 4 will be blurry, and will depend on how Apple wishes to address different problems going forward, and what the reactions look like. It is very possible that only 12” will be released at first, or a handful more lower end model laptop and desktop products could be released, with high performance Macs following in Stage 4, or perhaps everything but enterprise products like Mac Pro will be switched fully. Only time will tell.

Stage 4 (the end goal):

Congratulations, you’re made it to the end of my TED talk. We are now well into the 2020s and COVID-19 Part 4 is casually catching up to the 5G = Virus crowd. All Macs have transitioned fully to ARM. iMac, MacBooks Pro and otherwise, Mac Pro, Mac Mini, everything. The future is fully Apple from top to bottom, and vertical integration leading to market dominance continues. Many other OEM have begun to follow in this path to some extent, creating more demand for a similar class of silicon from other firms.
The remainder here is pure speculation with a dash of wishful thinking. There are still a lot of things that are entirely unclear. The only concrete thing is that Stage 4 will happen when everything is running Apple’s in- house processors.
By this point, consumers will be quite familiar with the ARM Macs existing, and developers have had have enough time to transition apps fully over to the newly unified system. Any performance, battery life, or app support concerns will not be an issue at this point.
There are no more details here, it’s the end of the road, but we are left with a number of questions.
It is unclear if Apple will stick to AMD's GPUs or whether they will instead opt to use their in-house graphics solutions that have been used since the A11 series of processors.
How Thunderbolt support on these models of Mac will be achieved is unknown. While Intel has made it openly available for use, and there are plans to have USB and Thunderbolt combined in a single standard, it’s still unclear how it will play along with Apple processors. Presently, iPhones do support connecting devices via PCI Express to the processor, but it has only been used for iPhone and iPad storage. The current Apple processors simply lack the number of lanes required for even the lowest end MacBook Pro. This is an issue that would need to be addressed in order to ship a full desktop-grade platform.
There is also the question of upgradability for desktop models, and if and how there will be a replaceable, socketed version of these processors. Will standard desktop and laptop memory modules play nicely with these ARM processors? Will they drop standard memory across the board, in favor of soldered options, or continue to support user-configurable memory on some models? Will my 2023 Mac Pro play nicely with a standard PCI Express device that I buy off the shelf? Will we see a return of “Mac Edition” PCI devices?
There are still a lot of unknowns, and guessing any further in advance is too difficult. The only thing that is certain, however, is that Apple processors coming to Mac is very much within arm’s reach.
submitted by Fudge_0001 to apple [link] [comments]

Best Practices for A C Programmer

Hi all,
Long time C programmer here, primarily working in the embedded industry (particularly involving safety-critical code). I've been a lurker on this sub for a while but I'm hoping to ask some questions regarding best practices. I've been trying to start using c++ on a lot of my work - particularly taking advantage of some of the code-reuse and power of C++ (particularly constexpr, some loose template programming, stronger type checking, RAII etc).
I would consider myself maybe an 8/10 C programmer but I would conservatively maybe rate myself as 3/10 in C++ (with 1/10 meaning the absolute minmum ability to write, google syntax errata, diagnose, and debug a program). Perhaps I should preface the post that I am more than aware that C is by no means a subset of C++ and there are many language constructs permitted in one that are not in the other.
In any case, I was hoping to get a few answers regarding best practices for c++. Keep in mind that the typical target device I work with does not have a heap of any sort and so a lot of the features that constitute "modern" C++ (non-initialization use of dynamic memory, STL meta-programming, hash-maps, lambdas (as I currently understand them) are a big no-no in terms of passing safety review.

When do I overload operators inside a class as opposed to outisde?

... And what are the arguments foagainst each paradigm? See below:
/* Overload example 1 (overloaded inside class) */ class myclass { private: unsigned int a; unsigned int b; public: myclass(void); unsigned int get_a(void) const; bool operator==(const myclass &rhs); }; bool myclass::operator==(const myclass &rhs) { if (this == &rhs) { return true; } else { if (this->a == rhs.a && this->b == rhs.b) { return true; } } return false; } 
As opposed to this:
/* Overload example 2 (overloaded outside of class) */ class CD { private: unsigned int c; unsigned int d; public: CD(unsigned int _c, unsigned int _d) : d(_d), c(_c) {}; /* CTOR */ unsigned int get_c(void) const; /* trival getters */ unsigned int get_d(void) const; /* trival getters */ }; /* In this implementation, If I don't make the getters (get_c, get_d) constant, * it won't compile despite their access specifiers being public. * * It seems like the const keyword in C++ really should be interpretted as * "read-only AND no side effects" rather than just read only as in C. * But my current understanding may just be flawed... * * My confusion is as follows: The function args are constant references * so why do I have to promise that the function methods have no side-effects on * the private object members? Is this something specific to the == operator? */ bool operator==(const CD & lhs, const CD & rhs) { if(&lhs == &rhs) return true; else if((lhs.get_c() == rhs.get_c()) && (lhs.get_d() == rhs.get_d())) return true; return false; } 
When should I use the example 1 style over the example 2 style? What are the pros and cons of 1 vs 2?

What's the deal with const member functions?

This is more of a subtle confusion but it seems like in C++ the const keyword means different things base on the context in which it is used. I'm trying to develop a relatively nuanced understanding of what's happening under the hood and I most certainly have misunderstood many language features, especially because C++ has likely changed greatly in the last ~6-8 years.

When should I use enum classes versus plain old enum?

To be honest I'm not entirely certain I fully understand the implications of using enum versus enum class in C++.
This is made more confusing by the fact that there are subtle differences between the way C and C++ treat or permit various language constructs (const, enum, typedef, struct, void*, pointer aliasing, type puning, tentative declarations).
In C, enums decay to integer values at compile time. But in C++, the way I currently understand it, enums are their own type. Thus, in C, the following code would be valid, but a C++ compiler would generate a warning (or an error, haven't actually tested it)
/* Example 3: (enums : Valid in C, invalid in C++ ) */ enum COLOR { RED, BLUE, GREY }; enum PET { CAT, DOG, FROG }; /* This is compatible with a C-style enum conception but not C++ */ enum SHAPE { BALL = RED, /* In C, these work because int = int is valid */ CUBE = DOG, }; 
If my understanding is indeed the case, do enums have an implicit namespace (language construct, not the C++ keyword) as in C? As an add-on to that, in C++, you can also declare enums as a sort of inherited type (below). What am I supposed to make of this? Should I just be using it to reduce code size when possible (similar to gcc option -fuse-packed-enums)? Since most processors are word based, would it be more performant to use the processor's word type than the syntax specified above?
/* Example 4: (Purely C++ style enums, use of enum class/ enum struct) */ /* C++ permits forward enum declaration with type specified */ enum FRUIT : int; enum VEGGIE : short; enum FRUIT /* As I understand it, these are ints */ { APPLE, ORANGE, }; enum VEGGIE /* As I understand it, these are shorts */ { CARROT, TURNIP, }; 
Complicating things even further, I've also seen the following syntax:
/* What the heck is an enum class anyway? When should I use them */ enum class THING { THING1, THING2, THING3 }; /* And if classes and structs are interchangable (minus assumptions * about default access specifiers), what does that mean for * the following definition? */ enum struct FOO /* Is this even valid syntax? */ { FOO1, FOO2, FOO3 }; 
Given that enumerated types greatly improve code readability, I've been trying to wrap my head around all this. When should I be using the various language constructs? Are there any pitfalls in a given method?

When to use POD structs (a-la C style) versus a class implementation?

If I had to take a stab at answering this question, my intuition would be to use POD structs for passing aggregate types (as in function arguments) and using classes for interface abstractions / object abstractions as in the example below:
struct aggregate { unsigned int related_stuff1; unsigned int related_stuff2; char name_of_the_related_stuff[20]; }; class abstraction { private: unsigned int private_member1; unsigned int private_member2; protected: unsigned int stuff_for_child_classes; public: /* big 3 */ abstraction(void); abstraction(const abstraction &other); ~abstraction(void); /* COPY semantic ( I have a better grasp on this abstraction than MOVE) */ abstraction &operator=(const abstraction &rhs); /* MOVE semantic (subtle semantics of which I don't full grasp yet) */ abstraction &operator=(abstraction &&rhs); /* * I've seen implentations of this that use a copy + swap design pattern * but that relies on std::move and I realllllly don't get what is * happening under the hood in std::move */ abstraction &operator=(abstraction rhs); void do_some_stuff(void); /* member function */ }; 
Is there an accepted best practice for thsi or is it entirely preference? Are there arguments for only using classes? What about vtables (where byte-wise alignment such as device register overlays and I have to guarantee placement of precise members)

Is there a best practice for integrating C code?

Typically (and up to this point), I've just done the following:
/* Example 5 : Linking a C library */ /* Disable name-mangling, and then give the C++ linker / * toolchain the compiled * binaries */ #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif /* C linkage */ #include "device_driver_header_or_a_c_library.h" #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif /* C linkage */ /* C++ code goes here */ 
As far as I know, this is the only way to prevent the C++ compiler from generating different object symbols than those in the C header file. Again, this may just be ignorance of C++ standards on my part.

What is the proper way to selectively incorporate RTTI without code size bloat?

Is there even a way? I'm relatively fluent in CMake but I guess the underlying question is if binaries that incorporate RTTI are compatible with those that dont (and the pitfalls that may ensue when mixing the two).

What about compile time string formatting?

One of my biggest gripes about C (particularly regarding string manipulation) frequently (especially on embedded targets) variadic arguments get handled at runtime. This makes string manipulation via the C standard library (printf-style format strings) uncomputable at compile time in C.
This is sadly the case even when the ranges and values of paramers and formatting outputs is entirely known beforehand. C++ template programming seems to be a big thing in "modern" C++ and I've seen a few projects on this sub that use the turing-completeness of the template system to do some crazy things at compile time. Is there a way to bypass this ABI limitation using C++ features like constexpr, templates, and lambdas? My (somewhat pessimistic) suspicion is that since the generated assembly must be ABI-compliant this isn't possible. Is there a way around this? What about the std::format stuff I've been seeing on this sub periodically?

Is there a standard practice for namespaces and when to start incorporating them?

Is it from the start? Is it when the boundaries of a module become clearly defined? Or is it just personal preference / based on project scale and modularity?
If I had to make a guess it would be at the point that you get a "build group" for a project (group of source files that should be compiled together) as that would loosely define the boundaries of a series of abstractions APIs you may provide to other parts of a project.
--EDIT-- markdown formatting
submitted by aWildElectron to cpp [link] [comments]

How To Make $75 an Hour Online 2020  Nadex binary options 2020 Question & Answer about Candlestick Analysis. Binary ... Binary.com profit $100 to $10000 it's very easy 3 minute binary options trading strategy Q&A #1  BINARY OPTIONS

Struggling to Win on OTC Binary Options? Binary.com’s “Volatility Index” Might Be For You! Binary Options OTC Trading : Your Cheat-Sheet to Making Profits in Binary Options On Weekends! 9 Key Questions to Ask When Selecting a Good Binary Options Broker; Spectre.Ai Review: Regulated Broker Which ALSO Accepts People in Canada, Europe and UK! You can invest in binary options questions answers binary options from $10,000 up to 20,000. There are only 2 options, that is why it is called “binary”. Apr 13, 2017 · Top Questions To Ask Your Broker And Yourself Before Trading Binary Options By Guest Post April 13, 2017, 2:22 pm • Posted in Binary Options Binary options …. How can I start trading with binary options? 1. Register to a trading platform/ broker, preferably one or more of our recommended platforms. 2. Select the asset or item to trade. For example, the EUR/ USD. 3. Determine the amount you wish to invest, make your prediction on direction the price of the asset will Generally, you will find some fundamental questions of every binary options traders mind that frequently asked by traders, especially who are less familiar with binary trading. Whether you just about to start trading binary options or for the sake of knowledge, getting to know about this style of trading will always be an advantage. Real World Binary Options Example . Nadex is a regulated binary options exchange in the United States. Nadex binary options are based on a "yes or no" proposition and allow traders to exit before

[index] [10509] [28771] [10528] [9376] [19995] [24325] [18332] [27428] [9212] [22557]

How To Make $75 an Hour Online 2020 Nadex binary options 2020

Best Binary Options Strategy 2020 - 2 Min Strategy Live Session! - Duration: 13:35. BLW Online Trading 244,879 views. 13:35. How to trade binary options in Nadex for profit step by step tutorial ... 7 answers to the questions you always ask me about. 👨🏽‍💻The best broker 2020: - https://pocketoption.com/smart/cHJV1PpFl7j5v0 USE CODE "IC3EgWIs" TO GET ... Binary Options Trading With 30 Second Options At Pocket Option ... Registration link for Pocket option klick link bellow ... Do you have any further questions for me? Write me an email To ask me a question : 👉Facebook https://bit.ly/2VNQxzq ... #binary_options_trading #binary_options_strategy_2020 #binary_options #binary_options_strategy #binary_options_strategies #binary ... You can also start trading with me, using my strategy for trading binary options from the video. If you have any questions, then ask them in the comments. I will answer everyone =)

Flag Counter