15 Popular Binary Options Brokers of 2020: Which One Is

Top US Binary Options Brokers – Best Binary Options Brokers & Platforms 2017

Top US Binary Options Brokers – Best Binary Options Brokers & Platforms 2017 submitted by emadbably to OptionsInvestopedia [link] [comments]

🔥🔥 Airdrop EOPT 🔥🔥 ♦️ GET 1,000 EOPT Tokens for Free!!! 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇 http://airdrop.easyoption.io/#68fed49x8w2 ♦️ EOPT is the token of EasyOption, which is the first global cryptocurrencies binary options trading platform. ♦️The team has won top VC's investment. ♦️ Get EOPT, you have oppur

http://airdrop.easyoption.io/#68fed49x8w2
submitted by AirDropSLO to CryptoAirdrop [link] [comments]

Binary Options Trading Platform – Selecting The Best top binary options brokers

submitted by eventby90 to binaryoption [link] [comments]

Top 5 Binary Options Brokers - Top Binary Options Trading Platforms 2017

submitted by jonatanb to binaryoption [link] [comments]

Virtual Reality: Where it is and where it's going

VR is not what a lot of people think it is. It's not comparable to racing wheels, Kinect, or 3DTVs. It offers a shift that the game industry hasn't had before; a first of it's kind. I'm going to outline what VR is like today in despite of the many misconceptions around it and what it will be like as it grows. What people find to be insurmountable problems are often solvable.
What is VR in 2020?
Something far more versatile and far-reaching than people comprehend. All game genres and camera perspectives work, so you're still able to access the types of games you've always enjoyed. It is often thought that VR is a 1st person medium and that's all it can do, but 3rd person and top-down VR games are a thing and in various cases are highly praised. Astro Bot, a 3rd person platformer, was the highest rated VR game before Half-Life: Alyx.
Lets crush some misconceptions of 2020 VR:
So what are the problems with VR in 2020?
Despite these downsides, VR still offers something truly special. What it enables is not just a more immersive way to game, but new ways to feel, to experience stories, to cooperate or fight against other players, and a plethora of new ways to interact which is the beating heart of gaming as a medium.
To give some examples, Boneworks is a game that has experimental full body physics and the amount of extra agency it provides is staggering. When you can actually manipulate physics on a level this intimately where you are able to directly control and manipulate things in a way that traditional gaming simply can't allow, it opens up a whole new avenue of gameplay and game design.
Things aren't based on a series of state machines anymore. "Is the player pressing the action button to climb this ladder or not?" "Is the player pressing the aim button to aim down the sights or not?"
These aren't binary choices in VR. Everything is freeform and you can basically be in any number of states at a given time. Instead of climbing a ladder with an animation lock, you can grab on with one hand while aiming with the other, or if it's physically modelled, you could find a way to pick it up and plant it on a pipe sticking out of the ground to make your own makeshift trap where you spin it around as it pivots on top of the pipe, knocking anything away that comes close by. That's the power of physics in VR. You do things you think of in the same vain as reality instead of thinking inside the set limitations of the designers. Even MGSV has it's limitations with the freedom it provides, but that expands exponentially with 6DoF VR input and physics.
I talked about how VR could make you feel things. A character or person that gets close to you in VR is going to invade your literal personal space. Heights are possibly going to start feeling like you are biologically in danger. The idea of tight spaces in say, a horror game, can cause claustrophobia. The way you move or interact with things can give off subtle almost phantom-limb like feelings because of the overwhelming visual and audio stimulation that enables you to do things that you haven't experienced with your real body; an example being floating around in zero gravity in Lone Echo.
So it's not without it's share of problems, but it's an incredibly versatile gaming technology in 2020. It's also worth noting just how important it is as a non-gaming device as well, because there simply isn't a more suitably combative device against a world-wide pandemic than VR. Simply put, it's one of the most important devices you can get right now for that reason alone as you can socially connect with no distancing with face to face communication, travel and attend all sorts of events, and simply manage your mental and physical health in ways that the average person wishes so badly for right now.
Where VR is (probably) going to be in 5 years
You can expect a lot. A seismic shift that will make the VR of today feel like something very different. This is because the underlying technology is being reinvented with entirely custom tech that no longer relies on cell phone panels and lenses that have existed for decades.
That's enough to solve almost all the issues of the technology and make it a buy-in for the average gamer. In 5 years, we should really start to see the blending of reality and virtual reality and how close the two can feel
Where VR is (probably) going to be in 10 years
In short, as good as if not better than the base technology of Ready Player One which consists of a visor and gloves. Interestingly, RPO missed out on the merging of VR and AR which will play an important part of the future of HMDs as they will become more versatile, easier to multi-task with, and more engrained into daily life where physical isolation is only a user choice. Useful treadmills and/or treadmill shoes as well as haptic suits will likely become (and stay) enthusiast items that are incredible in their own right but due to the commitment, aren't applicable to the average person - in a way, just like RPO.
At this stage, VR is mainstream with loads of AAA content coming out yearly and providing gaming experiences that are incomprehensible to most people today.
Overall, the future of VR couldn't be brighter. It's absolutely here to stay, it's more incredible than people realize today, and it's only going to get exponentially better and more convenient in ways that people can't imagine.
submitted by DarthBuzzard to truegaming [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]

MAME 0.222

MAME 0.222

MAME 0.222, the product of our May/June development cycle, is ready today, and it’s a very exciting release. There are lots of bug fixes, including some long-standing issues with classics like Bosconian and Gaplus, and missing pan/zoom effects in games on Seta hardware. Two more Nintendo LCD games are supported: the Panorama Screen version of Popeye, and the two-player Donkey Kong 3 Micro Vs. System. New versions of supported games include a review copy of DonPachi that allows the game to be paused for photography, and a version of the adult Qix game Gals Panic for the Taiwanese market.
Other advancements on the arcade side include audio circuitry emulation for 280-ZZZAP, and protection microcontroller emulation for Kick and Run and Captain Silver.
The GRiD Compass series were possibly the first rugged computers in the clamshell form factor, possibly best known for their use on NASA space shuttle missions in the 1980s. The initial model, the Compass 1101, is now usable in MAME. There are lots of improvements to the Tandy Color Computer drivers in this release, with better cartridge support being a theme. Acorn BBC series drivers now support Solidisk file system ROMs. Writing to IMD floppy images (popular for CP/M computers) is now supported, and a critical bug affecting writes to HFE disk images has been fixed. Software list additions include a collection of CDs for the SGI MIPS workstations.
There are several updates to Apple II emulation this month, including support for several accelerators, a new IWM floppy controller core, and support for using two memory cards simultaneously on the CFFA2. As usual, we’ve added the latest original software dumps and clean cracks to the software lists, including lots of educational titles.
Finally, the memory system has been optimised, yielding performance improvements in all emulated systems, you no longer need to avoid non-ASCII characters in paths when using the chdman tool, and jedutil supports more devices.
There were too many HyperScan RFID cards added to the software list to itemise them all here. You can read about all the updates in the whatsnew.txt file, or get the source and 64-bit Windows binary packages from the download page.

MAME Testers Bugs Fixed

New working machines

New working clones

Machines promoted to working

Clones promoted to working

New machines marked as NOT_WORKING

New clones marked as NOT_WORKING

New working software list additions

Software list items promoted to working

New NOT_WORKING software list additions

submitted by cuavas to emulation [link] [comments]

NanoFusion - Project Update and Next Steps

Build-Off Result

I'm sure some people will be wondering about the status of the NanoFusion project going forward. Naturally, the outcome of the Nano Build-Off was pretty disappointing for me personally. After initially receiving such a wave of positive feedback here on reddit, it was unfortunate to not even crack the top 20 projects.
In spite of that result, I think the community's desire to see a trustless privacy protocol in the Nano ecosystem is actually quite strong. I believe this Build-Off result is primarily a reflection of the judging criteria, which skewed strongly towards apps that were already somewhat polished, and able to be tested by one person within the space of 10 minutes. This naturally disfavours a project like NanoFusion which is still a proof-of-concept, and requires multiple participants in order to properly use it. All that to say, while I applaud the winning projects for their efforts, and extend my gratitude to Nanillionaire for sponsoring the event, I don't believe that the Build-Off result gives a full picture of the community's true priorities for future development of the Nano ecosystem.
Nevertheless this result points to a stark reality: NanoFusion is not yet ready for consumer use, not by a long shot.

What will it take for NanoFusion to be consumer-ready?

Protocol and Reference Implementation Status
There is a small amount of work to be done to finish the reference implementation of the protocol. The binary tree of input mix accounts has been constructed, but the code is not yet written to actually execute the mix, nor to trigger and execute refunds where necessary. That is really the last step that needs to be completed for the reference implementation, and it's not especially complicated. The tricky bit is that there are still a few bugs around communication between the clients that need ironing out. But those are relatively minor bugs, I'm confident they won't require fundamental changes to the protocol or the implementation architecture.
However, once the reference implementation is complete, that is where a whole new set of challenges begins.
Wallet Integration
The primary challenge will be to integrate NanoFusion into one or more popular wallets. For a privacy protocol to be most effective, we need as many people as possible using it. In a cryptocurrency like Nano, where transactions and addresses are all publicly visible on a block explorer, privacy is achieved by making it difficult to determine which transactions belong to you. Making it difficult is a matter of having your transactions get "lost in the crowd". The crowd of transactions that might potentially be yours is called the "anonymity set". We need that anonymity set to be as large as possible, which means we need as many people participating in Fusion events as possible.
The best way to achieve this is to get NanoFusion adopted by popular wallets, and ideally to have it enabled by default. The less decisions that a user needs to make in order to start participating, the better.
This raises one very important question. How do we make it as easy and appealing as possible for the developers of popular wallets to integrate this technology?
Workflow Design
In order to make NanoFusion integration appealing to wallet developers, I believe we need to gear NanoFusion integration around workflows that actually work for end-users of the wallet. This is not as simple as it appears.
The Nano ecosystem is currently geared around the assumption that addresses will tend to be re-used for many sends and receives. This is almost intrinsic to the ORV consensus mechanism. You keep your funds in one account, and the voting weight for that account is assigned to your representative.
In a UTXO-based cryptocurrency, BCH in particular, it is much more normal to use a separate subaddress for every incoming transaction. CashFusion on BCH works by taking all your different receive addresses and mixing the funds from those addresses together (along with the funds of many other people's subaddress sets). But on Nano it's different. Imagine you have an online store accepting Nano funds via BrainBlocks integration. If you receive 100 payments, you might have BrainBlocks forward them all to just one account that you own. But this makes it trivial for a customer to look at the block explorer and see all of your sales volume, which completely undermines your privacy.
In the context of something like BrainBlocks, it's easy to see how our e-commerce store could generate a new address for each transaction, and have BrainBlocks forward funds to that new address. Then we could run NanoFusion later to obscure the linkages between our individual sales. But what about addresses that are shared in public? Lots of people put up single Nano addresses to receive donations, etc. What does NanoFusion do with those? For NanoFusion to be most effective, a given user should NOT have just one input and one output account in the mix. It makes it too easy for their input and output accounts to be linked (at least to a moderate-to-high degree of probability) by the publicly visible amounts in the accounts.
For NanoFusion to be most effective, we need to develop a culture where it is normal for people to use a new address each time they receive some nano. How do we make it appealing for wallet developers to build their wallets this way? I don't really know. The only example of this pattern that I know is Nanonymous (https://github.com/LilleJohs/Nanonymous). We could potentially implement something like stealth addresses, so that the user really gives out one canonical public address, but a different receive address is actually used for each transaction "under the hood". However, that adds a whole new layer of complexity. It means wallets have to be upgraded to know how to interact with a stealth address.
API Design
Even if we could arrange things so that it was more common for individuals to have multiple input accounts to mix, we would still be left with another question. What would wallet developers want the API for NanoFusion to look like? By nature, NanoFusion requires a large number of messages to be sent back and forth between all of the mix participants. For security reasons, those messages cannot be sent all at once. Player A has to wait for Player B to send message 1 before it is safe (cryptographically) for Player A to reveal the content of message 2.
What should a library look like that manages that complexity on behalf of the wallet developer? What language should it be written in? I have begun this project under the assumption that the most common wallet-dev language would be javascript, but there may be cases where other platforms are needed.

Where To From Here?

Technical Reflections
Thinking through all of these practical challenges has given me a new perspective on the whole issue of cryptocurrency privacy protocols. I have a much greater respect for what has been achieved by the Monero project. In Monero, everyone actually uses the privacy protocol. As described above, that is no small accomplishment. Even though the privacy protocols for Dash, ZCash, BTC and BCH do basically work, their use is not widespread. Even leaving aside the issue of the extra transaction fees incurred (which is not such a problem for Nano), these optional privacy protocols are just not that convenient to use. Because not everyone uses them, the anonymity set is not nearly as large as it could be. And because not everyone uses them, transactions you do before and after a mix/fusion event leak metadata which can be used to undermine the privacy that you gained by using the privacy protocol in the first place.
Inevitably, NanoFusion will also suffer from this problem. Suppose that 20% of the Nano community starts regularly participating in fusions (a very generous estimate, given the low adoption rate of optional privacy features in the other cryptocurrencies mentioned). That still leaves the large majority of transactions probably re-using addresses most of the time. This means that the non-private majority will leak fresh metadata whenever they interact with accounts that were previously obscured through NanoFusion. This is not an easy problem to overcome. It can only be done with a culture shift towards ubiquitous privacy, and that can probably only be achieved by all major wallets agreeing to enable privacy features by default. Not an easy hill to climb.
Personal Circumstances
For the sake of transparency, I also want to mention that I will be stepping back from NanoFusion for a while. This is simply a necessity of life. Our first child will be born in a few months. Once that happens, I will obviously have a lot going on and much less time available to work on these kinds of side projects. Between now and then, I need to focus on other projects which have more potential to generate some income for my little family. I'm a dad now(!), and my family comes first.
I'm very glad to have (hopefully) contributed some useful groundwork for the process of bringing privacy to Nano. This project also gave me the chance to learn some new technologies at a much deeper level, I'm grateful that too. Neverthless, for the foreseeable future, I'll be stepping back. I don't make that decision lightly. I put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into bringing NanoFusion this far, so I definitely hope it doesn't just fall by the wayside. I hope others will pick it up and run with it in my absence.
Call to Action
Want to make NanoFusion happen? Here's what we really need next:
  1. Wallet Developers - we need you to speak up. Tell us, what would an ideal NanoFusion API look like? How can we make it as easy as possible for you to integrate NanoFusion into your wallet app? What programming language do you want to use to consume that API? What I would love to see is several wallet developers collaborating together to create a document describing their ideal API. That will make it much easier for potential developers to pick it up and start implementing it.
  2. Javascript developers - are any of you interested in stepping up and finishing off the last bits of the reference implementation for NanoFusion?
As always, details of the project are available at http://nanofusion.casa (including demo videos, technical whitepaper and the link to the GitHub repo).
God bless everyone, thank you to all those who have followed along and offered so much encouragement for this project.
submitted by fatalglory to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

The state of cross platform GUI frameworks in mid 2020

I don't really know what I want to achieve with this post, I guess a healthy discussion and (less likely) enlightenment about a GUI framework that I've missed.
I want to build a cross platform native application, I really do, but the current state of cross platform GUI libraries lives me disappointed.
Lets do a quick recap of what we have:
  1. QT - C++ based with many binding (the popular one is Python) with a very ambiguous license model (IMNAL, partly LGPL that requires you to link dynamically to Qt and forbids you to change it, partly GPL [like the charts sub module] that requires you to open source you app) - with an absurdly high license fee of almost $4k which is way bigger than a wallet of a solo developer that is doing something for a hobby. On top of that it uses C++ (which I dislike).
  2. JavaFX - Half baked (missing lots of modules that are available as third party), java based with very confusing versioning (was part of JDK, now its not. Third party modules are not supported by newer Java versions).
    1. There is TornadoFX that makes Java go away and replaces it with a way nicer language like Kotlin, but it has the same issues as JavaFX - half baked, officially supports Java 8 (which is coming close to End of Free public updates by Oracle)
  3. Swing / AWT - Probably already dead except for companies that are heavily invested into it and have manpower to maintain the code
  4. wxWidgets - Half baked, C++
  5. GTK - Looks good only in Linux, also C++
  6. Electron - Web based, a lot of available web components (graphs, auto complete, DnD and etc), no single framework that has extensive components so you are left with building your own Frankenstein of gazzilion npm packages, big binary size, memory eater
  7. And a lot more that are not ready for production.
So. What options are left to a solo dev who want to build cross platform applications?
submitted by skwee357 to AskProgramming [link] [comments]

MAME 0.222

MAME 0.222

MAME 0.222, the product of our May/June development cycle, is ready today, and it’s a very exciting release. There are lots of bug fixes, including some long-standing issues with classics like Bosconian and Gaplus, and missing pan/zoom effects in games on Seta hardware. Two more Nintendo LCD games are supported: the Panorama Screen version of Popeye, and the two-player Donkey Kong 3 Micro Vs. System. New versions of supported games include a review copy of DonPachi that allows the game to be paused for photography, and a version of the adult Qix game Gals Panic for the Taiwanese market.
Other advancements on the arcade side include audio circuitry emulation for 280-ZZZAP, and protection microcontroller emulation for Kick and Run and Captain Silver.
The GRiD Compass series were possibly the first rugged computers in the clamshell form factor, possibly best known for their use on NASA space shuttle missions in the 1980s. The initial model, the Compass 1101, is now usable in MAME. There are lots of improvements to the Tandy Color Computer drivers in this release, with better cartridge support being a theme. Acorn BBC series drivers now support Solidisk file system ROMs. Writing to IMD floppy images (popular for CP/M computers) is now supported, and a critical bug affecting writes to HFE disk images has been fixed. Software list additions include a collection of CDs for the SGI MIPS workstations.
There are several updates to Apple II emulation this month, including support for several accelerators, a new IWM floppy controller core, and support for using two memory cards simultaneously on the CFFA2. As usual, we’ve added the latest original software dumps and clean cracks to the software lists, including lots of educational titles.
Finally, the memory system has been optimised, yielding performance improvements in all emulated systems, you no longer need to avoid non-ASCII characters in paths when using the chdman tool, and jedutil supports more devices.
There were too many HyperScan RFID cards added to the software list to itemise them all here. You can read about all the updates in the whatsnew.txt file, or get the source and 64-bit Windows binary packages from the download page.

MAME Testers Bugs Fixed

New working machines

New working clones

Machines promoted to working

Clones promoted to working

New machines marked as NOT_WORKING

New clones marked as NOT_WORKING

New working software list additions

Software list items promoted to working

New NOT_WORKING software list additions

submitted by cuavas to MAME [link] [comments]

what is this i just downloaded (youtube code?)

so this is kinda a wierd story. I was planning to restart my computer. (cant remember why) I spend most of my time watching youtube videos so i had alot of tabs open. So i was watching the videos then deleting the tab but not opening new tabs. So i was down 2 i think 1 it was a pretty long video so i tried to open a youtube home page tab just to look while i listened to the video. And this is a short exerp of what i got.





YouTube











submitted by inhuman7773 to techsupport [link] [comments]

Top Binary Options Brokers 2019/2020 - Best 3 Broker for Digital Option Trading - Top Broker Reviews Best Binary Options Trading Strategy 99% Win 2020 Binary.com Review 2020 - Trading App & Platform - Is It Safe? BINARY OPTIONS STRATEGY - Easy Binary Options Strategy 2020. BINARY OPTIONS BROKERS 2019/2020 - TOP 3 Binary Options Brokers 2019/2020

Pocket Option is a binary options brokerage that provides online trading of more than 100 different underlying assets. Pocket Option is one of the only sites that accept new traders from the United States and Europe. Established in 2017, Pocket Option is based in the Marshall Islands and is licensed by the IFMRRC (International Financial Market Relations Regulation Center). How to Compare Binary Option Brokers and Platforms. Every day a new binary options platform is launched. When searching on the Internet, you will get thousands of binary options brokers. It is difficult for new traders to decide which binary broker is best to join. In order to trade binary options in a safer way, it is important to have reliable brokerage services. We have compared the best regulated binary options brokers and platforms in July 2020 and created this top list. Every broker and platform has been personally reviewed by us to help you find the best binary options platform for both beginners and experts. In today's fast-moving world of technology, online brokers must be continually re-visit, update and develop their binary options platforms. When operating a trading platform, there is no time to stand still, so the race is on for each broker to offer you the best online experience. Our analysis of each broker lays out the most important features, including deposits, returns, bonuses, and supported platforms. This way, you can make an informed decision and get the best protection for your funds. Top 15 Binary Options Brokers 1. IQ Option. IQ Option was established in 2012 and had since then received favorable reviews on

[index] [12924] [29129] [4039] [8509] [16739] [7580] [3473] [25397] [29648] [28046]

Top Binary Options Brokers 2019/2020 - Best 3 Broker for Digital Option Trading - Top Broker Reviews

Best Binary Options Strategy 2020 - 2 Min Strategy Live Session! - Duration: 13:35. BLW Online Trading 245,008 views. 13:35. The nice issue is that many of such top rated Binary Options brokers let traders to make use of their Binary Options trading platforms with none challenges and give you a wide array of indices and ... Top 5 Binary Options brokers in 2017 - Duration: 8:26. BLW Online Trading 12,863 views. 8:26. HOW TO TRADE BINARY OPTIONS? - Binary Options Strategy With Best Binary Options Brokers - Duration ... Best Binary Options Social Trading Platforms -Make Money With Binary Options Copy Trading Review - Duration: 5:53. Binary Options Broker Reviews 6,091 views 5:53 Top 10 Binary Brokers Review (2018) Best Binary Options Trading Platforms! - Duration: 6:20. Wealth Assets 112,082 views. 6:20.

Flag Counter