An analysis of Synthetix’s binary options offering

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]

Insider John's Review – Do not Think Of Buying? Binary App 810 Reviews –How It Work?

Insider John's Review – Do not Think Of Buying? Binary App 810 Reviews –How It Work?
Insider John Binary App 810 Review Is Binary App 810 Scam Or Work? Is Insider John Binary App 810 System Software Worth It? READ My Real Binary App 810 Review Until Buy It
First Insider John Binary App 810 Proof
CLICK HERE TO SEE Insider John Binary App 810 Binary App 810 IN LIVE ACTION NOW!!!
For Extra $810 Insider John Binary App 810 Signals Bonus PLEASE GO HERE NOW!
Before you get a copy of Insider John Binary App 810, STOP Make sure you check my Honest Insider John Binary App 810 Review Until Try it.
App Name: Insider John Binary App 810 Binary App 810 Price: FREE
Binary App 810 Website: http://insiderjohnapp.com
Binary App 810 Developer: John Callaghan
Insider John Binary App 810 Review
John Insider Binary App 810 The first Binary Options App with Verified Account Performance and Personal Account Representatives!
What Is Binary App 810? Binary App 810 By John Callaghan is likely the most advanced and profitable 60 Second Binary Options trading App
Binary App 810 also the first trading software in the world that allows its users to SHARE with the whole user community if a binary signal was profitable for them or not.
Out of 800+ BETA Binary App 810 users which tested the software, 9 out of 10 users reported their trades through the Social Performance Reporting feature.
Some highlights of the Binary App 810 system:
Provides signals on 60 second Binary Options. Insider John Binary App 810 a built in Social Performance Reporting feature – traders can SHARE their account Performance with the community.
3 options for access: download, web-version (perfect for Mac users and tablet/smartphone users), App (downloaded through the Google Play Store)
810 Binary App 810 signals and more per day Over 85% accuracy
$810 Binary App 810 bonus to traders who join (no credit card required)
Personal Binary App 810 Account Representative for traders who join.
User can access their account rep via PHONE (this has never been done before in the binary options trading industry)
Free SMS notifications at no charge (users can subscribe to this service in order to receive 1-2 key notifications via SMS).…and SO much more!
Binary App 810 is on a league of it’s own as you can see. Insider John Binary App 810 the first trading Application on the planet that combines so many great features under one product.
Insider John Review - Insider Jon Binary App System ,Insider John Binary App Review , Insider John Binary App, Insider John App, Insider John Review, Binary App 810,Binary App 810 Review, Binary App 810 Software, Binary App 810 App, Buy Binary App 810, Binary App 810 Scam Binary App 810 live ,Binary App 810 Reviews, Get Binary App 810,Binary App 810 binary options, Binary App 810 Bot, Buy Binary App 810,Binary App 810, Binary App 810 Review, Binary App 810 Software, Binary App 810 App, Binary App 810 Download, Binary App 810 Scam, Binary App-810, Buy Binary App 810, insiderjohn.com, insiderjohn.com Review, insiderjohn.com Scam, Binary App-810 Review, BinaryApp-810, BinaryApp-810 Review, binary options, options trading, stock trading, binary options trading, option trading, futures trading,
Insider John's Review – Do not Think Of Buying? Binary App 810 Reviews –How It Work? http://insiderjohn.com
submitted by RonaldCR7 to SnabbaVinster [link] [comments]

Insiders Circle Review By Matt Warrn is Insiders Circle Scam Or Legit? Is Insiders Circle Software...

Insiders Circle Review By Matt Warrn is Insiders Circle Scam Or Legit? Is Insiders Circle Software Real? Find Out The Real Truth About Insiders Circle Software in My Insiders Circle Review Until Thin…
By Matt Warrn is Insiders Circle Scam Or Legit? Is Insiders Circle Software Real? Find Out The Real Truth About Insiders Circle Software in My Insiders Circle Review Until Think To Invest in InsidersCircle APP Software Insiders Circle Binary options training software announced the availability of their new binary options trading software with high quality education content to learn options trading beginning of 30th November 2015. More information About Insiders Circle Software can be found here…
Product Description Of Insiders Circle Software: Product Name : Insiders Circle Insiders Circle CEO : Matt Warrn Official Insiders Circle website : ==> Visit Website Now!
Insiders Circle Price: FREE
Insiders Circle is a binary options trading software that’s meant to help traders get involved in binary options trading with less risk than traditional investment opportunities. Insiders Circle software was created by Matt Warrn who is the professional binary trader behind the software. Find out all about Insiders Circle software by Matt Warrn.
Insiders Circle software was developed with the user in mind and is able to “completely take control of the binary options trading process” by finding and automating the trades for the investor. There are a number of investors reaching over $2,539 per day using the live trading signals provided by Insiders Circle software.
==> Visit Website Now!
New Binary Options Trader can plug into the live signals and begin receiving real-time alerts instantly so they don’t have to spend Time learning the ins and outs of binary investing.
The newest feature that has been added to the Insiders Circle software is the automation feature which will completely control the trading by placing the trades at the Insiders Circle broker. This is a major driving factor behind the buzz of Insiders Circle software and the hundreds of new members that continue to join on a daily basis.
The Insiders Circle software is going to find the best trading opportunities that will give you the ability to earn up to 97% profit per successful trade. The second the Insiders Circle APP senses a trade the investor is going to get an instant alert which will tell them precisely what and how to trade. There are a limited number of investment options when it comes to binary and those are the “call” or the “put.” The Free Money System software tells the trader to place a call the option is going to move upward by Signals of expiration while the put means the option will most likely be moving downward.
Every option has an expiration that’s set by the trader and this can range from 30 seconds to as long as one year (365 days). In the event the option moves in the direction choose by the trader by the expiration he or she will win a profit payout of 89%-98%.
A loosing trade will cost the initial investment that was placed into that specific option which typically ranges from $5 to $1,000 per trade. The point behind the Insiders Circle software is to take out the guess work and learning curve to trading binary options. By following the signals that the software provides traders can begin investing with little to no background in binary options.
Binary Options Trading with Insiders Circle Binary Options Software System have long been an excellent way to earning money online and make a Perfect profit. Millions of binary options traders around the world aim to go down this route to make a significant amount of profits. Yet, they come across a range of hurdles that leave them gasping for air in a world that is ruthless. Matt Warrn have come up with a Binary Options Trading System called “Insiders Circle”, which is designed to make binary options that much easier to succeed with. They have cracked the Binary Options Trading Software Secret code, but does Insiders Circle live up to the promise? This Insiders Circle Review will take a glance at the pros and cons of Insiders Circle to see whether it lives up to the hype.
What is Insiders Circle Let’s begin by trying to understand what Insiders Circle App is before looking at the pros and cons. Insiders Circle is a binary options software product created by Matt Warrn to exploit the Binary Options Trading With binary options system in place at the moment. They have found a loophole that reduces your risks and increases your rewards. Matt Warrn provide you with Insiders Circle Software to exploit the system and reduce those risks significantly. InsidersCircle software is trades for you after information about your budget has been inserted.
Insiders Circle Pros Watch over the Shoulder of a Pro Every Day and you can learn as you trade. Averaging 95% Winning Weeks – which means more potential profits for you Insiders Circle Are Completely Transparent No previous experience with binary options trading needed Web based, no need for downloads, also works on phones, tablets You Can Even Watch Them From Your Phone (iPhone Users – Photon Browser)
No PC Downloads Required Multiple Signals Every Day – You will receive average of 23 – 67 signals daily which is good enough for you to earn quick cash for your day. Can turn $250 into $47,498 in few days
Insiders Circle Cons Are there any cons with this Insiders Circle Software product? Yes, it is near impossible to find a product that does not have cons. The only con with this product would be you won’t be finding 100% success. It is simply impossible to win every option and that is the way it is. You will still have to sit down and study your options from time to time before moving forward to get the type of Insiders Circle results you are craving. This is a minor problem and only needed if you want 100% results.
Insiders Circle Concluding Opinion Is Insiders Circle worth it? Yes, I have been using Insiders Circle for over a month and it does the trick. The Insiders Circle software is easy to use and I cannot imagine investing money without it. This InsidersCircle is as simple as it gets and anyone can use it. These type of products are rare and to have it released now is quite amazing. I would definitely recommend Insiders Circle for those individuals who want to make money now and make a lot of it.
==> Visit Website Now!
does insiders circle software works, download insiders circle,is insiders circle a scam,matt warrn, matt warrn insiders circle,matt warrn insiders circle software, matt warrn insiders circle system, review of insiders circle,review of insiders circle binary options, review of insiders circle software, review of insiders circle system, insiders circle, insiders circle app, insiders circle app reviews, insiders circle binary, insiders circle binary options, insiders circle binary system, insiders circle bonus, insiders circle broker, insiders circle complaints, insiders circle download, insiders circle free, insiders circle login, insiders circle review, insiders circle reviews, insiders circle software, insiders circle software review, insiders circle system, insiders circle system reviews, insiders circle testimonials, insiders circle trading, insiders circle website, insiderscircle binary options , insiderscircle robot, insiderscircle scam, insiders circle, ınsiderscircle app, insiders circle review, insiderscircle scam
submitted by ahadil to ChristmasProfits [link] [comments]

Binary options: A scammer takes us inside the job and reveals why Australians 'are definitely good targets'

Binary options: A scammer takes us inside the job and reveals why Australians 'are definitely good targets' submitted by LuckyBdx4 to australia [link] [comments]

Insider Binary Bot Review 2015 - Is Insider Binary Bot SCAM Or LEGIT? Best Binary Options Trading Robot. The Truth About Insider Binary Bot By James Beckett Review

Insider Binary Bot Review 2015 - INSIDER BINARY BOT?? Learn the Secrets about Insider Binary Bot in this Insider Binary Bot review! So What is Insider Binary Bot Software all about? Does Insider Binary Bot Actually Work? Is Insider Binary Bot scam or does it really work?
To discover answers to these questions continue reading my in depth and honest Insider Binary Bot Review below.
Insider Binary Bot Description:
Name: Insider Binary Bot
Niche: Binary Options.
The Insider Binary Bot has changed the face of online trading. Everybody from newbies to gurus have been totally astonished by the power of the new Insider Binary Bot Software.
The Insider Binary Bot software which has taken over three years to fully develop. If you’re new to online earning, this will blow your mind. It actually predicts trends and patterns in the market, placing trades for you so you can sit back and watch your balance grow!
It’s SO simple to set up and with only a few clicks you’re ready to start trading.
Official Site: Access The NEW Insider Binary Bot!! CLICK HERE NOW!!!
Exactly what is Insider Binary Bot?
Insider Binary Bot is basically a binary options trading software that is designed to help traders win and forecast the market trends with binary options. The software likewise provides analyses of the market conditions so that traders can know what should be your next step. It provides different secret strategies that ultimately helps. traders without making use of any complicated trading indicators or follow charts.
Insider Binary Bot Binary Options Trading Method
Base the Insider Binary Bot trading strategy. After you see it working, you can start to implement your strategy with regular sized lots. This technique will certainly settle over time. Every Forex binary options trader must pick an account type that is in accordance with their needs and expectations. A larger account does not suggest a bigger revenue potential so it is a terrific concept to begin small and quickly add to your account as your returns increase based on the winning trading selections the software makes.
Binary Options Trading
To help you trade binary options properly, it is very important to have an understanding behind the fundamentals of Binary Options Trading. Currency Trading, or foreign exchange, is based upon the viewed value of 2 currencies pairs to one another, and is impacted by the political stability of the country, inflation and interest rates among other things. Keep this in mind as you trade and learn more about binary options to optimize your learning experience.
Insider Binary Bot Summary
In summary, there are some apparent ideas that have been tested in time, as well as some newer strategies. that you may not have thought about. Ideally, as long as you follow exactly what we recommend in this article you can either get going with trading with Insider Binary Bot or enhance on what you have currently done.
The Insider Binary Bot system allows newbies and even the most experienced traders online, to predict trends in the market and place trades with a win ratio of over 90%!
If you’re worrying about not having any previous experience trading online, then STOP now. Once you are registered with Insider Binary Bot, they provide all the help you will ever need. When I registered I had never traded online before and didn’t have the slightest clue what I was doing. Insider Binary Bot provided me with video tutorials, one on one support and first hand examples of the type of work that’s involved.
Anyway enough of me going on and on about my success story, its time you made yours.
There Is Only A Very Limited Spaces Available
So Act Now Before It's Too Late
Click Here To Claim Your Insider Binary Bot LIFETIME User License!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tags: Insider Binary Bot app, Insider Binary Bot information, Insider Binary Bot url, Insider Binary Bot website, Insider Binary Bot youtube video, Insider Binary Bot trading software, get Insider Binary Bot, article about Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot computer program, Insider Binary Bot the truth, Insider Binary Bot support, Insider Binary Bot support email address, Insider Binary Bot help desk, similar than Insider Binary Bot, better than Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot contact, Insider Binary Bot demo, Insider Binary Bot video tutorial, how does Insider Binary Bot work, is Insider Binary Bot the best online is Insider Binary Bot a scam, does Insider Binary Bot really work, does Insider Binary Bot actually work, Insider Binary Bot members area, Insider Binary Bot login page, Insider Binary Bot verification, Insider Binary Bot software reviews, Insider Binary Bot no fake review, Insider Binary Bot Live Broadcast, is Insider Binary Bot real, Insider Binary Bot forex trading, Insider Binary Bot binary options trading, Insider Binary Bot automated app, the Insider Binary Bot review, Insider Binary Bot signals, Insider Binary Bot mac os x, Insider Binary Bot broker sign up, Insider Binary Bot free download, reviews of Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot live results, Insider Binary Bot bonus, Insider Binary Bot honest review, Insider Binary Bot 2015, is Insider Binary Bot worth the risk, Insider Binary Bot pc desktop, Insider Binary Bot free trial,Insider Binary Bot testimonial, Insider Binary Bot scam watch dog, Insider Binary Bot warrior forum, Insider Binary Bot web version, Insider Binary Bot open a account, Insider Binary Bot laptop, Insider Binary Bot revised Method 2015, Insider Binary Bot Unbiased review, is Insider Binary Bot all hype?, real people invested in Insider Binary Bot, is Insider Binary Bot a shame, Insider Binary Bot discount, Insider Binary Bot binary option watch dog review, Insider Binary Bot youtube, seriously will Insider Binary Bot work, Insider Binary Bot facebook, Insider Binary Bot activation code, Insider Binary Bot 2015 Working, Insider Binary Bot twitter, Insider Binary Bot currency trading, Insider Binary Bot real person review, Insider Binary Bot example trade, will Insider Binary Bot work on mobile phone, Completely New Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot customer service, new Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot webinar, Insider Binary Bot webinar replay, Insider Binary Bot anybody using this, Insider Binary Bot real or fake, is Insider Binary Bot live trades real, Insider Binary Bot is this a scam, is Insider Binary Bot reliable?, Insider Binary Bot honest reviews, Insider Binary Bot is it a scam, Insider Binary Bot download software, Insider Binary Bot app review, Insider Binary Bot software download, Insider Binary Bot forum, Insider Binary Bot signals, Insider Binary Bot download page, Insider Binary Bot software demo somebody using it, Insider Binary Bot binary software, Insider Binary Bot binary options review, Insider Binary Bot members, Insider Binary Bot scam or legit,Insider Binary Bot comments, minimum deposit for Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot reviews, Insider Binary Bot binary today, Insider Binary Bot pro review, Insider Binary Bot windows 7, Insider Binary Bot windows 8 and windows XP, Insider Binary Bot scam or real, Insider Binary Bot login, Insider Binary Bot has anybody out there made any money out of it?, Insider Binary Bot vip membership pass, does Insider Binary Bot work on autopilot?, Insider Binary Bot price, is Insider Binary Bot a scam or not, will Insider Binary Bot help me, real truth about Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot System, Insider Binary Bot inside members page, Insider Binary Bot software downloads, how to download Insider Binary Bot, how to access Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot Robot, how to use Insider Binary Bot, how to trade with Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot NEWS Update and details, Insider Binary Bot sign in, the Insider Binary Bot trading options, Insider Binary Bot info, insiderbinarybot.com, insiderbinarybot.com review, insiderbinarybot.com reviews, Insider Binary Bot information, Insider Binary Bot searching for new winning trades, Insider Binary Bot today, Insider Binary Bot feedback, Insider Binary Bot real user review, Insider Binary Bot customer reviews, Insider Binary Bot consumer review, Insider Binary Bot Review 2015, Insider Binary robot review, insider john Insider Binary Bot review, george s Insider Binary Bot review, Insider Binary Bot doesn't work, is Insider Binary Bot another scam or legit, Insider Binary Bot refund, Insider Binary Bot By James Beckett Review, Insider Binary Bot James Beckett Reviews, Activate Insider Binary Bot, review of Insider Binary Bot, log on to Insider Binary Bot, is Insider Binary Bot manual binary trading, Insider Binary Bot bot review, Insider Binary Bot test, Insider Binary Bot explanation, what brokers work with Insider Binary Bot software, what is Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot news, new version of Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot fan Page, Insider Binary Bot breaking news, Insider Binary Bot Register, Insider Binary Bot sign up, Insider Binary Bot broker sign up, Insider Binary Bot real proof, how to activate auto trading on Insider Binary Bot,Insider Binary Bot robot, Insider Binary Bot members area, Insider Binary Bot sign in, web version Insider Binary Bot, should i use Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot yes or no, do i need trading experience, Insider Binary Bot create account, Insider Binary Bot instructions, how to get a Insider Binary Bot demo, Insider Binary Bot special, desktop Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot Secret method, Join Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot ea trading app, Insider Binary Bot limited time, Insider Binary Bot pros and cons, Insider Binary Bot bad reviews, is Insider Binary Bot software automatic binary trading, Insider Binary Bot negative and positive review, Insider Binary Bot Author, Insider Binary Bot creator, who made Insider Binary Bot, what is the Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot real review, Insider Binary Bot broker, Insider Binary Bot sign up broker, Insider Binary Bot sign up broker review, Insider Binary Bot fund broker, Insider Binary Bot how to fund broker,Insider Binary Bot deposit funds into broker, how does Insider Binary Bot trade, Insider Binary Bot trading bot, what is Insider Binary Bot and cost?, Insider Binary Bot strategy, Insider Binary Bot password reset, Insider Binary Bot beta tester, Insider Binary Bot comparison, Insider Binary Bot questions and answers, rate & review Insider Binary Bot, rate and reviews Insider Binary Bot, is Insider Binary Bot site legit?, Insider Binary Bot reviews online, is Insider Binary Bot for real, Insider Binary Bot login page, Insider Binary Bot results, Insider Binary Bot winning and losing trades, Insider Binary Bot overview, Insider Binary Bot training, how to setup Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot home, real testimonial on Insider Binary Bot system, Insider Binary Bot real time trading, start trading with Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot proof, Insider Binary Bot the truth, Get Insider Binary Bot, Insider Binary Bot Review
The software automatically predicts fluctuations on the stock markets every 60 seconds, with a success rate of 90% and above!
Insider Binary Bot is producing some insane results!
Click Here To Download The New Insider Binary Bot Right NOW!
submitted by HibbittsKast51 to HibbittsKast [link] [comments]

Is Insiders Circle a scam or the best binary options signals in the market?? Check out my latest review!

submitted by JonathanQ11 to binaryoption [link] [comments]

Pure Profits Review - Insider LOOK In The NEW Pure Profits By Jeremy Owensky Binary Options Trading System

Pure Profits Review Hey How Are You? In This Review I Am Going To Share With You Exactly What Pure Profits Is All About!
If You are looking for the NEW Pure Profits Software CLICK HERE CLICK HERE
So What Is The Pure Profits?
Pure Profits is binary options app. The interface is sleek and easy to understand, and care has obviously been taken to allow for navigating and understanding trades as simple as possible. It essentially operates on the idea that an asset's financial worth is either going to rise or fall it gives you a complete overview of the trade, and the indicators which will guide you on how to proceed with the trade. This is far move convenient than need to look for the trading information you need from numerous different trading websites. Instead, you'll get all the information you need in one convenient location!
Click Here To Receive Life Time Access To Pure Profits AND An Exclusive CASH Bonus For New Pure Profits Members
Pure Profits Review By Jeremy Owensky
Pure Profits is a piece of software built for the real world there's no assurances here that traders are going to suddenly be earning millions. No binary options system is going to give you easy riches overnight, so instead all it offers is helpful advice so that you can make the trade. Each trade will happen at a certain time period over during day, This will be particularly useful to those working with tight schedules. The great thing about the Pure Profits application is that there is a particular sum that you can put up for each trade, This means that you can trade whatever you're comfortable with. Pure Profits, we were extremely reluctant to be taken in by the claims of Pure Profits. We were actually put off by what the creators had said were its benefits. Basically The Pure Profits is a simple and easy to use application. All that's needed from you is a few clicks and you'll be trading before you know it!
Pure Profits Binary Trading App
If you're thinking about getting into investing in Binary Options or, if you're already an established investor and the setup you're using just now isn't working as well as you'd hoped the Pure Profits system could help you out. Forex Trading is an industry with fantastic opportunities to get some serious cash, and it's always getting bigger. Using Pure Profits, you can take out a lot of the legwork that's usually involved with trading. The first thing you need to have in order to begin trading in the binary options market is a internet connection this is required in order to let you have access to actual time information on what is taking place in the market.
The Pure Profits application is easy to use so if you click the link below and enter your email address. and you'll be taken to the next page where the ins and outs will be shared with you in detail. Just click the link below so you can get more information about this software
Click Here And Watch The Pure Profits Software In Action!
submitted by KaraBontemps40 to KaraBontemps [link] [comments]

Legal Insider Bot Review - The Legal Insider Bot by Greg Marks Binary Options Trading Reviewed

Legal Insider Bot Review Read This comprehensive review of the Legal Insider Bot software before you download the Legal Insider Bot by Greg Marks!
So What Exactly Is The Legal Insider Bot?
Legal Insider Bot is binary options application. The interface is sleek and easy to understand, and care has obviously been taken to make navigating and understanding the contents as simple as can be. It basically works on the idea that an asset's value is either going to rise or fall it provides a complete summary of the trade, and the information which will advise you on how to proceed with the trade. This is so much easier than need to hunt down the information you need from a number of websites. Instead, you'll get all the info you need in one convenient place!
Click Here To Access The Official Legal Insider Bot Website
Legal Insider Bot Review
Legal Insider Bot is a piece of software built for the real world there's no assurances here that traders are going to suddenly be raking in millions overnight. No binary options system is going to result in easy riches overnight, so instead all it offers is helpful assistance so that you can place the trade. Each trade will take place at a separate time period over the course of the day, This will be particularly useful to those working with limited time. The amazing thing about the Legal Insider Bot application is that there is a particular amount that you can put up for a trade, This means that you can trade whatever you're comfortable with. Legal Insider Bot, we were very hesitant to be taken in by the claims of Legal Insider Bot. We were actually a little discouraged by what the developers had said were its benefits. Basically The Legal Insider Bot is a straight forward and easy to use software. All that's needed from you is a few clicks and you'll be investing right away!
Legal Insider Bot Binary Trading Software
If you're wanting to get into investing in Binary Options or, if you're already trading and your current system isn't working well for you the Legal Insider Bot system could help you out. Forex Trading is a market with huge potential to make profits, and it's always getting bigger. Using Legal Insider Bot, you can take out a lot of the manual work that's usually involved with trading. The first thing you have to have in order to start trading in the binary options market is a internet connection this is essential in order to let you have access to actual time info on what is happening in the market.
The Legal Insider Bot application is very easy to use just click the link below and enter your email address. and you'll go to the next page where the in depth info will be explained to you in detail. Just click on the link below so you can get more information
Click Here For More Information About The Legal Insider Bot
submitted by DouglasLangdale to DouglasLangdale [link] [comments]

I love trading Binary Options. Figured it'd be cool giving you an inside look

I love trading Binary Options. Figured it'd be cool giving you an inside look submitted by nesvquez to u/nesvquez [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]

80% losses guaranteed! Inside the murky world of binary options trading

submitted by iseetheway to Economics [link] [comments]

Inside binary options, from the provider side - would there be an interest in an AMA?

submitted by binaire_opties_wolf to investing [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]

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 improve reverse tcp/http meterpreter backdoors so they aren't discover by Windows Defender ?

I've been testing the different windows backdoors available in Veil and Metasploit, with their default settings and changing a few options (when possible) to try and generate a different signature. Still, as soon as I save the binary to the Windows 10 virtual machine, the Windows threat system detects it, and removes it immediately.
If I manually stop real-time scanning and shields for windows defender threats then it allows me to copy and run the various payload.exe. But it is obviously not encouraging that they only serve in that setting. Any recommendation to avoid antivirus?
I thought that maybe mixing payload.exe with some file to build a more complex Trojan might change the signature of the entire file, but I have the feeling that the antivirus is capable of detecting the threat only because it has that payload.exe inside.
submitted by psicohistoriador to hacking [link] [comments]

A trans person's measured take on the trans sports issue

So first of all this post was inspired by GGExMachina's brief statement on the issue:
For example, it is objectively the case that biological men have a physical advantage over women. Yet if someone points this out and suggests that transgender people shouldn’t be allowed to fight in women’s UFC, or women’s soccer or weightlifting competitions or whatever, suddenly you’re some kind of evil monster. Rather than saying that of course trans people shouldn’t be bullied and that we could perhaps have a trans olympics (like the Paralympics and Special Olympics), we are expected to lie.
I've found that this position is incredibly popular among liberals/left-leaning people, especially here on reddit. It seems like, once or twice a month, like clockwork, a thread stating more or less the same thing on /unpopularopinion or /offmychest will get thousands of upvotes. And while I completely understand the thought process that leads otherwise left-leaning people to come to such conclusions, I feel like the issue has been, broadly speaking, dishonestly presented to the general public by a mixture of bad-faith actors and people who have succumbed to the moral panic. And, as I've seen, there are plenty of people in this subreddit and elsewhere who are itching to be as supportive as they possibly can to the trans community but find themselves becoming very disillusioned by this particular issue. By making this post I hope to present a more nuanced take on the issue, not only in regards to my personal beliefs on what kinds of policies are best to preserve fairness in women's sports but also in regards to shining a light on how this issue is often times dishonestly presented in an attempt to impede the progression of pro-trans sentiments in the cultural zeitgeist.

Sex & Gender

The word "transgender" is an umbrella term that refers to people whose gender identities differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the approximate composition of "the trans community" in the United States is 29% Transgender men (Female-to-Male), 33% Transgender women (Male-to-Female), and 35% non-binary. (The remaining 3% were survey respondents who self-identified as "crossdressers", who were still included in the survey on the grounds of being gender non-conforming)
While non-binary people, as a group, are probably deserving of their own separate post. the focus of this post will be on trans men and trans women. I will also be primarily focusing on transgender people who pursue medical transition with Hormone-Replacement-Therapy, as they are most relevant to the issue of sports. (Mind that while the majority of binary trans people fit into this camp, there is a sizable minority of trans people who do not feel the need to medically transition.)
What do trans people believe about Gender?
The views of transgender people in regards to Gender are actually pretty varied, although the most prominent positions that I've personally seen are best summed up into two different camps:
  1. The "Trans-Medical" camp
Transgender people who fall into this camp usually consider Gender Dysphoria to be the defining factor of what makes somebody trans. The best way I can describe this camp is that they sort of view being transgender akin to being intersex. Only whereas an intersex person would be born with a disorder that affects the body, a trans person is born with a disorder that affects the brain. Trans people in this camp often times put an emphasis on a clinical course for treatment. For example, a person goes to a psychologist, gets diagnosed with gender dysphoria, starts hormone replacement therapy, pursues surgery, then emerges from this process of either cured of the gender dysphoria or, at the very least, treated to the fullest extent of medical intervention. This position is more or less the original position held by trans activists, back in the day when the word "transsexual" was used instead of "transgender". Though many younger trans people, notably YouTuber Blaire White, also hold this position. Under this position, sex and gender are still quite intertwined, but a trans man can still be considered a man, and a trans woman a woman, under the belief that sex/gender doesn't just refer to chromosomal sex and reproductive organs, but also to neurobiology, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics. So someone who is transgender, according to this view, is born with the physical characteristics of one sex/gender but the neurobiology of another, and will change their physical characteristics, to the fullest extent medically possible, to match the neurobiology and therefore cure the individual of gender dysphoria.
Critics of this position argue that this mentality is problematic due to being inherently exclusive to transgender people who do not pursue medical transition, whom are often times deemed as "transtrenders" by people within this camp. Many people find it additionally problematic because it is also inherently exclusive to poorer trans people, particularly those in developing nations, who may not have access to trans-related medical care. Note that there are plenty of trans people who *do* have access to medical transition, but nevertheless feel as if the trans community shouldn't gatekeep people who cannot afford or do not desire medical transition, thus believing in the latter camp.
  1. The "Gender Identity" camp
I feel like this camp is the one most popularly criticized by people on the right, but is also probably the most mainstream. It is the viewpoint held by many more left-wing trans people, (Note that in the aforementioned 2015 survey, only 1% of trans respondents voted Republican, so trans people are largely a pretty left-wing group, therefore it makes sense that this position would be the most mainstream) but also notably held by American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, GLAAD, and other mainstream health organizations and activist groups.
While people in this camp still acknowledge that medical transition to treat gender dysphoria can still be a very important aspect of the transgender experience, it's believed that the *defining* experience is simply having a gender identity different from the one they were assigned at birth. "Gender identity" simply being the internal, personal sense of being a man, a woman, or outside the gender binary.
Many people in this camp, though, still often maintain that gender identity is (at least partially) neurobiological, but differ from the first camp in regards to acknowledging that the issue is less black & white than an individual simply having a "male brain" or a "female brain", but rather that the neurological characteristics associated with gender exist on more of a spectrum, thus leaving the door open to gender non-conforming people who do not identify as trans, as well as to non-binary people. This is where the "gender is a spectrum" phrase comes from.
"52 genders" is a popular right-wing meme that makes fun of this viewpoint, however it is important to note that many trans and non-binary people disagree with the idea of quantifying gender identity to such an absurd amount of individual genders, rather more simply maintaining that there are men, women, and a small portion of people in-between, with a few words such as "agender" or "genderqueer" being used to describe specific identities/presentations within this category.
It's also noteworthy that not all people in this camp believe that neurobiology is the be-all-end-all of gender identity, as many believe that the performativity of gender also plays an integral role in one's identity. (That gender identity is a mixture of neurobiology and performativity is a position held by YouTuber Contrapoints)
Trans people and biological sex
So while the aforementioned "Gender Identity" viewpoint has become quite popularized among liberals and leftists, I have noticed a certain rhetorical mentality/assumption become prevalent alongside it, especially among cisgender people who consider themselves trans-allies:
"Sex and Gender are different. A trans woman is a woman who is biologically male. A trans man is a man who is biologically female"
When "Sex" is defined by someone's chromosomes, or the sex organs they were born with, this is correct. However, there is a pretty good reason why the trans community tends to prefer terms like "Assigned Male at Birth" rather than "Biologically Male". This is done not only for the inclusion of people who are both intersex and transgender (For example, someone can be born intersex but assigned male based on the existence of a penis or micropenis), but also due to the aforementioned viewpoint on divergent neurobiology being the cause for gender dysphoria. Those reasons are why the word "Assigned" is used. But the reason why it's "Assigned Male/Female At Birth" instead of just "Assigned Male/Female" is because among the trans community there exists an understanding of the mutability of sexually dimorphic biology that the general population is often ignorant to. For example, often times people (especially older folks) don't even know of the existence of Hormone Replacement Therapy, and simply assume that trans people get a single "sex change operation" that, (for a trans woman) would just entail the removal of the penis and getting breast implants. Therefore they imagine the process to be "medically sculpting a male to look female" instead of a more natural biological process of switching the endocrine system form male to female or vice versa and letting the body change over the course of multiple years. It doesn't help that, for a lot of older trans people (namely Caitlyn Jenner, who is probably the most high profile trans person sadly), the body can be a lot more resistant to change even with hormones so they *do* need to rely on plastic surgery a lot more to get obvious results)
So what sexually dimorphic bodily characteristics can one expect to change from Hormone Replacement Therapy?
(Note that there is a surprising lack of studies done on some of the more intricate changes that HRT can, so I've put a "*" next to the changes that are anecdotal, but still commonly and universally observed enough among trans people [including myself for the MTF stuff] to consider factual. I've also put a "✝" next to the changes that only occur when people transition before or during puberty)
Male to Female:
Female to Male:
For the sake of visual representation, here are a couple of images from /transtimelines to demonstrate these changes in adult transitioners (I've specifically chosen athletic individuals to best demonstrate muscular changes)
https://preview.redd.it/ntw333p9sbty.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5fe779757dfc4a5dc56566ff648d337c59fbe5cb
https://www.reddit.com/transtimelines/comments/dpca0f/3_years_on_vitamin_t/
Additionally, here's a picture of celebrity Kim Petras who transitioned before male puberty, in case you were wondering what "female pubescent skeletal development" looks like in a trans woman:
https://cdn2.thelineofbestfit.com/images/made/images/remote/https_cdn2.thelineofbestfit.com/portraits/kim_petras_burakcingi01_1107_1661_90.jpg

How does this relate to sports?

Often times, when the whole "transgender people in sports" discussion arises, a logical error is made when *all* transgender people are assumed to be "biologically" their birth sex. For example, when talking about trans women participating in female sports, these instances will be referred to as cases of "Biological males competing against females".
As mentioned before, calling a trans woman "biologically male" strictly in regards to chromosomes or sex organs at birth would be correct. However, not only can it be considered derogatory (the word "male" is colloquially a shorthand for "man", after all), but there are many instances where calling a post-HRT transgender person "biologically [sex assigned at birth]" is downright misleading.
For example, hospitals have, given transgender patients improper or erroneous medical care by assuming treatment based on birth sex where treatment based on their current endocrinological sex would have been more adequate.
Acute Clinical Care of Transgender Patients: A Review
Conclusions and relevance: Clinicians should learn how to engage with transgender patients, appreciate that unique anatomy or the use of gender-affirming hormones may affect the prevalence of certain disease (eg, cardiovascular disease, venous thromboembolism, and osteoporosis), and be prepared to manage specific issues, including those related to hormone therapy. Health care facilities should work toward providing inclusive systems of care that correctly identify and integrate information about transgender patients into the electronic health record, account for the unique needs of these patients within the facility, and through education and policy create a welcoming environment for their care.
Some hosptials have taken to labeling the biological sex of transgender patients as "MTF" (for post-HRT trans women) and "FTM" (for post-HRT trans men), which is a much more medically useful identifier compared to their sex assigned at birth.
In regards to the sports discussion, I've seen *multiple threads* where redditors have backed up their opinions on the subject of trans people in sports with studies demonstrating that cis men are, on average, more athletically capable than cis women. Which I personally find to be a pathetic misunderstanding of the entire issue.
Because we're not supposed to be comparing the athletic capabilities of natal males to natal females, here. We're supposed to comparing the athletic capabilities of *post-HRT male-to-females* to natal females. And, if we're going to really have a fact-based discussion on the matter, we need to have separate categories for pre-pubescent and post-pubescent transitioners. Since, as mentioned earlier, the former will likely have different skeletal characteristics compared to the latter.
The current International Olympic Committee (IOC) model for trans participation, and criticisms of said model
(I quoted the specific guidelines from the International Cycling Union, but similar guidelines exist for all Olympic sports)
Elite Competition
At elite competition levels, members may have the opportunity to represent the United States and participate in international competition. They may therefore be subject to the policies and regulations of the International Cycling Union (UCI) and International Olympic Committee (IOC). USA Cycling therefore follows the IOC guidelines on transgender athletes at these elite competition levels. For purposes of this policy, international competition means competition sanctioned by the UCI or competition taking place outside the United States in which USA Cycling’s competition rules do not apply.
The IOC revised its guidelines on transgender athlete participation in 2015, to focus on hormone levels and medical monitoring. The main points of the guidelines are:
Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction. It is the responsibility of athletes to be aware of current WADA/USADA policies and file for appropriate therapeutic use exemptions.
Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).
The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by random or for-cause testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months.
Valid criticisms of the IOC model are usually based on the fact that, even though hormone replacement therapy provokes changes to muscle mass, it does *not* shrink the size of someone's skeleton or cardiovascular system. Therefore an adult-transitioned trans woman could, even after losing all levels of male-typical muscle mass, still have an advantage in certain sports if she had an excessively large skeletal frame, and was participating in a sport where such a thing would be advantageous.
Additionally, the guidelines only require that athletes be able to demonstrate having had female hormone levels for 12-24 months, which isn't necessarily long enough to completely lose musculature gained from training on testosterone (anecdotally it can take 2-4 years to completely lose male-typical muscle mass) So the IOC guidelines don't have any safeguard against, for example, a trans woman training with testosterone as the dominant hormone in her body, and then taking hormones for the bare minimum time period and still having some of the advantage left.
Note that, while lower level sports have had (to the glee of right-wing publications sensationalizing the issue) instances of this exact thing happening, in the 16 years since these IOC guidelines were established, not a single transgender individual has won an Olympic medal
Also note that none of the above criticisms of the IOC policy would apply in regards to the participation of pre-pubescent-transitioned trans women. After all, male-pubescent bone structure and cardiovascular size, and male-typical muscle levels, can't possibly exist if you never went through male puberty to begin with.
What could better guidelines entail, to best preserve fairness in female sports while avoiding succumbing to anti-trans moral panic?
In my personal opinion, sports leagues should pick one of the three above options depending on what best fits the nature of the sport and the eliteness of the competition. For example, extremely competitive contact sports might be better off going with the first option, but an aerobic sport such as marathon running would probably be fine with the third option.

How this issue has been misrepresented by The Right

I'll use Joe Rogan as an example of this last thing:
She calls herself a woman but... I tend to disagree. And, uh, she, um... she used to be a man but now she has had, she's a transgender which is (the) official term that means you've gone through it, right? And she wants to be able to fight women in MMA. I say no f***ing way.
I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a f***ing man. That's a man, OK? You can't have... that's... I don't care if you don't have a dick any more...
If you want to be a woman in the bedroom and you know you want to play house and all of that other s*** and you feel like you have, your body is really a woman's body trapped inside a man's frame and so you got a operation, that's all good in the hood. But you can't fight chicks. Get the f*** out of here. You're out of your mind. You need to fight men, you know? Period. You need to fight men your size because you're a man. You're a man without a dick.
I'm not trying to discriminate against women in any way, shape, or form and I'm a big supporter of women's fighting. I loved watching that Ronda Rousey/Liz Carmouche fight. But those are actual women. Those are actual women. And as strong as Ronda Rousey looks, she's still looks to me like a pretty girl. She's a beautiful girl who happens to be strong. She's a girl! [Fallon Fox] is not a girl, OK? This is a [transgender] woman. It's a totally different specification.
Calling a trans woman a "man", and equating transitioning to merely removal of the dick, and equating trans women's experiences as women as "playing house" and "being a woman in the bedroom". These things are obviously pretty transphobic, and if Rogan had said these things about just any random trans woman his statements would have likely been more widely seen in that light. But when it's someone having an unfair advantage in sports, and the audience is supposed to be angry with you, it's much more socially acceptable thing to say such things. But the problem is, when you say these kinds of things about one trans woman, you're essentially saying those derogatory things about all trans women by extension. It's the equivalent of using an article about a black home invader who murdered a family as an excuse to use a racial slur.
Now, I'm not saying that Rogan necessarily did this on purpose, in fact I'm more inclined to believe that it was done moreso due to ignorance rather than having an actual ideological agenda. But since then, many right wing ideologues who do have an ideological agenda have used this issue as an excuse to voice their opinions on trans people while appearing to be less bigoted. Ie. "I'm not trying to be a bigot or anything and I accept people's rights to live their lives as they see fit, but we NEED to keep men out of women's sports", as a sly way to call trans women "men".
Additionally, doing this allows them to slip in untrue statements about the biology of trans women. I mean, first of all in regards to the statement "You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints", obviously even in regards to post-pubescent transitioners, not every trans woman is going to have bigger hands and shoulder joints than every cis woman (My hands are actually smaller than my aunt's!). It's just that people who go through male puberty on average tend to have bigger hands and shoulder joints compared to people who go through female puberty. But over-exaggerating the breadth of sexual dimorphism, as if males and females are entirely different species to each-other, helps to paint the idea of transitioning in a more nonsensical light.
I hope this thread has presented this issue in a better light for anyone reading it. Let me know if you have any thoughts/criticisms of my stances or the ways I went about this issue.
submitted by Rosa_Rojacr to samharris [link] [comments]

a non-transphobic defense of the existence of the late r/GenderCritical subreddit (the necessity of seeing motherhood as a class)

I want to first assert that I am not a radfem TERF. Before you judge my politics, let me take you through what I believe about gender.
  1. There is no gender essentialism. Humans are like animals. We do not have souls. We do not have a gender inside of us. I am a woman but I don't 'feel like a woman' inside me. In fact, at some point I used to identify publicly as non-binary because I thought it was a fact of reality that everyone was empty of this thing called 'gender' inside of us. I subscribed to anti-humanist ideas.
    1. Corollary: I reject any notion of a Cartesian spirit or soul or spiritual gender as non-materialist.
  2. Gender is expressed through sex and sexuality. You are born a certain sex and with a sexuality that is both innate (gay or straight) but also capable of developing or changing during pubescence based on experiences that shape your ego (fetishes). In nature, it makes sense for animals to change their appearance (sex) to achieve sexual gratification (reproduction). Our bodies know more than we can say because sexuality is beyond language and not subservient to what our ego thinks or logically demands. If you were born a homosexual and were an effeminate child, you might become a trans woman because you are attracted to heterosexual men or bears. If that isn't the case and you are attracted to mostly straight women and have no desire for SRS, then maybe your desire to transition is a sexual expression based on a desire to conceal your sex for the sake of non-traditional sexual intercourse that you find erotic. THAT IS OK. I do very kinky stuff in bed as well. I am also incapable of admitting what I do in bed because my ego wants to protect my fetishes that are dependent on secrecy.
    1. Corollary: There is no concrete reality to 'gender,' it is either expressed physically through sex or physically through sexuality (actions and communication geared towards sex).
  3. Non-binary gender identity has arisen because of how the PMC class engages in immaterial labor. Since there is no reality to gender outside of sex or sexuality (the expression of sex drive), we can't 'perceive' our gender identity, we can only enact it. The present PMC class of college educated women and non-binary queer people are no longer engaging in productive labor that still resembles traditional 'labor' and not just clicking things on a screen or typing posts for Woke McDonald's. They no longer have to engage in reproductive labor or care labor, and when they do, they turn it into a microtransaction to let capial manage their hearts (hey, paypal me for explaining this to you, cis man). Women now have to be seen as equal subjects under capital because they need to be equally subject to capital's formal exploitation through the wage. When a woman says, "I must not be anything because I don't feel anything inside," it's because gender isn't essential and isn't something you feel like a soul. You feel nothing because you are depressed because you can't have kids under capitalism and are kind of sexually frustrated, and because you aren't engaging in labor that makes you feel like a 'woman' (mothering and reproductive labor), or a million other reasons that have to do with your working conditions and the stupid life you're being forced to eke out. If you are like me, 'doing things' that express 'gender' (sexuality, sex acts, and reproductive labor) will actually make you 'feel like a woman.' If you aren't feeling anything, the problem is the job and life you are being forced to live, which is alienated and unnatural. And not all women are meant to be mothers. You need to follow your 'vocation' (what you feel).
  4. Women entered the workforce around the same time the middle class started to boom. The middle class is being replace by the PMC. The PMC require exploitative reproductive practices in order to maintain their family structure and the reproduction of the middle class as a whole. Middle class couples traditionally needed one income to support a family, and their gen X/millennial children need two. Their children are PMC. Due to the falling rate of profit, it now takes two parents' incomes to raise a child in the middle class. There is a generational gap because of the falling rate of profit. PMC jobs were created by the middle class not by increasing labor production directly (more workers, more machines) but through maximizing the techniques used to control labor for profit--- that is why we see the growth of the managerial class, the PMC. Profit is created from unwaged work. The PMC tap into profit by creating microtransactions out of areas of life that used to not be able to be accessed by the wage. This 'technology' (by technology, I mean machines plus the sum total of all science including social science) is what they pay huge sums of future labor (student debt is promising future work/wage) to be able to access. In order to pay back their student debt, PMC women must engage in formal labor in a workplace, even if they have children. This fundamentally changes our social structure because it causes women to outsource their own reproductive labor to working class women. Look at how the median income of college graduates has shifted over the course of the last few decades--- parental incomes ($142,000 for Virginia Tech) are over double the median income at age 34 ($62,000). It now takes two incomes to raise one family, which leads to assortative mating.
  5. Liberation of the working class requires the liberation working mothers from capitalism. Working mothers have it hard. Either we do all of our own reproductive labor (homemaking, childcare, cooking) on top of our formal labor (our job) to provide for our families, or we share that labor with our partner if we are lucky to have one--- and he is also overworked. We know it is impossible to "double our workloads" because we already work as much as we can, so the sad truth is working outside of our families comes at the cost of the work we can do to support our own families, and it is easier to be fired for being a bad employee than it is to be fired for being a bad mom. But there's a third option: maybe we think that we can work hard enough in our jobs to afford better childcare to give our kids an advantage. But a family in Virginia already has to spend 18 percent of their income on childcare for an infant, and nowhere in America does any state provide what is considered affordable childcare (lower than 8 percent of our incomes). If you happen to be college-educated and debt-free, you might be able to make enough at your job to pay other women to do your reproductive labor for you--- you can use apps to hire maids, babysitters, meals, laundry, anything. But when you order a cleaning lady or babysitter to your apartment, you are ignoring the fact that she also has kids. You are paying her as little as possible because you are merely PMC. By nature of you buying her labor away from her own family, you have already ordered the social world into one where some children have better care during their most important formative years. And the working class women who aren't engaging in reproductive labor for the PMC/MC are engaged in working class labor, and the number one thing that prevents working class women from being able to become politically active is they are afraid a strike will threaten their job security, which for them threatens their children's security. Box store and essential workplaces can only strike if they find a way to collectivize childcare and give mutual aid to working women. Working mothers have specific issues that need to be organized around as our own class because we have uteruses that produce capital by producing labor and we are biologically bound to the reproduction of our children.
  6. A UBI for women and familial caregivers (a 'care wage' or 'wages for housework') would be revolutionary. Capitalism is based off of the unpaid/underpaid reproductive labor of women, and would not be able to sustain itself without the exploitation of women beginning at the very origin of the family unit: the working mother. If working class women had a UBI, they could safely go on strike without worrying that their children will starve. If PMC women have a UBI, they can mother their own children and stop outsourcing their reproductive labor to the exploited working class. Religious social conservatives want the protection of the family unit. All of this can be framed as pro-life. Without economic pressure, women can better vet their partners and find good fathers who will provide for them. This UBI should also apply to all single parents and for one partner is a queer co-parenting partnership. It should also apply to all caregivers since 40% of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. have occurred in nursing homes. We need to bring our elderly back home, and we can only afford to be full-time care providers if we are given a wage for it. If non-violent incarcerated men are also returned to their communities, the need for the state will wither away because working class family units can stabilize society long enough during an interim period until work is locally re-organized between workers based completely on mutual consent and a division of resources based on supporting the most vulnerable members of our society evenly: children.

If hypothetically a UBI for mothers is too problematic for the left, then the left is the problem.

You are not a communist if you are unwilling to make sacrifices for your community. You should be willing to sacrifice if it means over 50% of society (WOMEN AND CHILDREN) would benefit the most. All working class people could be liberated by a UBI for women. If you are less than 1% of the population, you must make your interests coincide with the interests of the working class and stop blocking material progress for women. This broad desire (UBI for mothers) can also be extended beyond sex and sexuality to include queer parents and familial caregivers easily. What prevents people from even imagining the idea of a UBI for mothers is their fear of being called out on being TERFS or being seen as too trad and unwoke.
I am a materialist feminist. I am mostly inspired by the Wages for Housework campaign from 70s Italy. I am also pretty trad because I am a heterosexual woman who believes in god (because of fucking Wittgenstein and Simone Weil, please help) who wants to have kids but cannot under capitalism because I don't think it's ethical to give birth to a future worker under capitalism especially because we are on track for global destruction because of climate change. But I would have children under communism in a heartbeat because I think it will look more like stateless socialism, like early christian communities with a division of labor based around our sexual drives and moral agreements (which ultimately should be about affirming life and protecting children). Most queer anarchists I know love the idea of queer separatism anyway. People with different moral agreements on reproduction should form their own communities (even if it means forming communities within cities). I have loved many leftist trans women more than I can possibly ever say. But motherhood is a biological, materialist class. Babies need their mothers. Children need their mothers. Substitutes are ersatz. Adults need their mothers. Before you get offended about this, please think of your own mom and what she has done to support you. Think of how scary it is that women's bodies have to basically cleave in half under the threat of bleeding out in order to produce a baby (and each baby is the production of a future worker, a future member of your community).
This understanding of gender also makes sense for working class men. High school guys shoot up their cafeterias because of existential sexual frustration: they know that no matter what they do under capitalism, they will never be able to earn enough to attract a woman who could be a housewife happily for them. There are women who want to be housewives, who would agree to a partnership if it meant they didn't have to engage in productive labor and could focus on the reproduction of their children instead. If we make it possible for working class women to be able to 'depend' on working class men again for a larger income, we can create social harmony.
Please don't cancel me, I have already given up everything to organize for communism from within the working class. This is just what I believe.
submitted by blueridgebitch to stupidpol [link] [comments]

Gravity's Rainbow Group Read | Sections 13-16 | Week 5

Well folks, this was a doozy of a week, wasn’t it? Some of these sections are quite challenging, for a variety of reasons. But we also see some pretty critical plot developments, and some genuine hilarity at poor Slothrop’s expense, too. Gotta love that cubeb.
This is also where the book really takes off in terms of it’s story arc (especially Slothrop’s origin story), as well as its embrace of sexual deviancy in all its forms, so I’m very curious to see the reactions from the first-timers. It’s a lot to take in.
Anyhoo, I’ll start this with a broader summary of themes, then break the summary and analysis down by section, and include some discussion prompts at the end. There’s a lot to work with this week - this section was twice as long as previous weeks. This analysis is going to be lengthy, but I’ll try to keep as focused as I can.
Several broad themes start to crystallize by this point in the narrative, especially opposition, which takes a multitude of forms: 1-0, white-black, death-life, social control-anarchy, Capitalism-black market, division-unification, colonizer-colonized, domination-submission, Elect-Preterite.
My ordering of items in those pairings is intentional. This book (and Pynchon) sees white, Euro-American colonial culture as intimately tied to a need for control, domination, and a belief in salvation (everyone likes to think they’re part of the Elect, nicht wahr?), which results in a culture of death and division. The War is the embodiment of this. Pynchon repeatedly takes the side of the Preterite - the anarchist, the minority, the colonized. Pigs, which Pynch clearly loves, seem to be emblematic of this noble-yet-humble Preterite.
Related to that is the idea of resisting baser desires and human nature vs accepting them vs sublimating them into full-blown pathologies (e.g. colonialism, Crutchfield the Westwardman). Many of the worst symptoms of society stem from our artificial divisions and denial of the natural order.
So, if we have deadly, pervasive, controlling systems, what are us poor folks stuck inside them to do? How do we free ourselves from the System? From Them?
Pynchon brings up at least three options in this week’s reading:
1.Escape (Katje leaving, vs Gottfried’s passive waiting for salvation) 2.Enjoy the good and ignore the negative (Jessica trying to live in her bubble with Roger, vs. Roger’s unhappy focus on the negatives without being able to change them) 3.Blow it all up (Katje’s option for Schußstelle 3, which she decides against, vs what? Death, perhaps?)
Finally, I’d like to discuss an underlying theme based on a separate work that has strongly influenced Pynchon, and Gravity’s Rainbow: T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land. I never realized this before, but I’ve read the poem probably 75 times since I last read GR, so I’m pretty familiar with it by this point.
I highly recommend reading it, but it’s primarily about the decline of Europe after WWI into a wasteland and the death-and-rebirth cycle. A central theme relates to the ancient belief that the harvest god (or later, the king, such as in Arthurian legend) was fundamentally tied to the land. If the king was young and vibrant, the land would be fertile. As the king became old or fell ill, the land would become barren. Thus the king (or harvest god - see the Hanged Man of the tarot) would be sacrificed, either literally or symbolically, so he could be reborn and the land could be restored. “Death is a debt to nature due…” as ol’ Constant Slothrop’s epitaph read. We see this concept explicitly addressed in section 16 (p. 131):
If he’s not in fact the War then he’s its child-surrogate, living high for a certain term but come the ceremonial day, look out. The true king only dies a mock death. Remember. Any number of young men may be selected to die in his place while the real king, foxy old bastard, goes on.
The king is dead. Long live the king.
So how does this connect to our broader themes? Remember earlier when we discussed the invisible hand of the market, and how the economy and even social order are now hidden, directionless systems with no ruler?
If the king is the land and the land is the king, what do we think would happen to the land, to society, if we replaced the king with an invisible, incomprehensible force that operated under its own rules, outside human control? The chaos of WWII? The mass death without clear cause? The markets taking on a life of their own?
I think that’s what Pynchon’s getting at here. Would love your take.
On to our section summaries…
Section 13
YouTube Recording by u/ShisusBolton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69MV1vafocs
Here we delve further into formal psychology and it’s specific application not just on dogs, but humans.
We are finally shown the origin of Slothrop’s unique ability - psychological conditioning by Professor Jampf on poor “Infant Tyrone,” in an experiment that echoes the very real “Little Albert” experiment. We also learn why the connection is sexual - a simple matter of binary practicality to make it easier for lab assistants to measure the response to stimulus x. But what IS this mysterious stimulus? More importantly, was Infant Tyrone properly de-conditioned? It would appear not. Here we get a direct quote from Pavlov, the source for this part’s title. The concept of a “silent extinction beyond the zero,” the failure of which is the source of Slothrop’s rather intimate connection to the V2.
Slothrop is part of the psychological Preterite - a poor sap doomed from the beginning to be abnormal, no chance for salvation here. Controlled entirely by outside forces he’s not even aware of.
Apparently Slothrop’s “talent” is pretty damn precise, since his stars line up perfectly with the rocket strikes. We see some competing explanations for how this could be - from psychokinesis to some echo back through time of the rocket’s blast. We see characters all desperate to figure out why so they can predict where next? Maybe find out if they’re part of the Elect or not. The one possibility none of them consider, cannot consider: what if it’s all random? That’s too terrifying to contemplate for people who believe in predestination. Of course, only Jessica has the empathy to wonder if the women have all died or not.
As a slight aside, on p. 85 we get a linguistic exploration of the concept of “beyond the zero” by Mexico that I really loved:
Odd, odd, odd - think of the word: such white finality in its closing clap of the tongue. It implies moving past the tongue-stop - beyond the zero - and into the other realm. Of course, you don’t move past. But you do realize, intellectually, that’s how you ought to be moving.
The play on “ought” as the extension of “odd” beyond the zero is delightful. Here we also see “white” (remember our many examples of opposition?) being tied to finality. No death-rebirth cycle here.
We are then witness to a discussion between Pointsman and Mexico where the opposition of their personalities comes into sharp relief. Pointsman seeks binary cause/effect, Mexico seeks alternative between the 1 and the 0 - he proposes to “strike off at some other angle.” That scares Pointsman - it undermines not just his science but his fundamental worldview. His is one of predestination.
This also ties into the broader idea of how everyone’s actions and beliefs are consistently shaped by their (often unconscious) fundamental view of the nature of reality and how the world works. Thus, every character’s actions reflect not just their personalities, but distinct assumptions about the nature of causality, of human behavior, of society, of life and death.
Misc. notes:
The abbey near the White Visitation is described as a ruin on a cliff (p. 86) - it brings to mind the Tower from the Tarot and the related imagery of the Castle Perilous (both referenced in The Waste Land).
On p. 90-91 - I’m not positive, but this jumped out to me as an allusion to the play Waiting for Godot. The phrasing and pace of the segment starting “Why do you need me” and ending on the next page with “Help me” sounds very similar to an early scene in Godot, and the works share the themes of purposelessness, meaningless, invisible control, and the question of salvation.
Section 14
YouTube Recording by u/BodinethePig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6RFKZPX8rQ
Back to the mansion of the opening scene’s banana breakfast. An anonymous cameraman (is it us, the reader?) lends an element of voyeurism, as Katje models for the camera - but why? Meanwhile, Osbie Feel is busy making psychedelic cigarettes from mushrooms grown on the roof.
Pynchon notes Katje’s dress, and I suspect the focus on the name used for that particular cocoa shade is a subtle example of England’s casual racism and colonial past. A derogatory term repurposed for a product.
A view of Osbie’s oven triggers a flashback for Katje, to her time as a double-agent reporting to Pirate on the rocket battery Schußstelle 3, under the command of the sadistic Captain Blicero. We first heard of him back during the seance. His true name is Weissmann (literally white man), and his code name, Blicero, is the Teutonic name for death.
I mentioned the theme of opposition at the beginning of this increasingly-lengthy post, and Blicero is emblematic of one pole - literally white, male, colonizing death. But his teeth reveal hidden decay behind the white exterior. If Blicero is the personification of white Euro-American colonial culture, Pynchon’s saying there’s rot there, and it ain’t pretty.
Here’s where S&M comes into the narrative, in a darkly graphic way. Pynchon is fully willing to make the reader uncomfortable by confronting the parts of life that we normally avoid talking about or acknowledging, including those on the fringe. On top of that, we get the image of Der Kinderofen, echoing both Grimm’s fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel as well as the ovens of the concentration camps.
The house that Blicero, Katje, and Gottfried inhabit is a microcosm of colonialism and/or modern society. It’s literally referred to as “their Little State.” If that’s the case, Katje and Gottfried represent two responses to such a scenario: Katje decides that quitting the game is only way out, whereas Gottfried waits for salvation. Gottfried is confident he’s part of the Elect, but Katje isn’t so sure, and takes matters into her own hands. Meanwhile, the oven looms in the background - both the base of the State, and its ultimate destruction (p. 99). Is Pynchon implying that the modern state is fundamentally self-destructive? It would seem so.
We also get our first look at the other end of the arc: the rockets being fired. Interestingly, we realize they’re not as all-powerful and precise as they first appear. Deadly, sure, but many are exploding right after launch, even on the launchpad, killing the operators.
The flashback to Blicero’s history in colonial Africa introduces us to the Herero people, including Blicero’s lover, Enzian. Enzian represents an entirely different worldview from Blicero - a non-European, non-binary, non-Christian perspective. One of his gods, Ndjambi Karunga, represents the merging of the opposing forces that are so disconnected in the European’s worldview.
Back to the house, and we get more insight into Gottfried’s character. He’s clearly a passive participant, submissive, willing to do as he’s told. “If you cannot sing Siegfried at least you can carry a spear.” (p. 103). He accepts the suffering he endures as part of the system, a normal stage in life before moving on to some career of his own, some form of autonomy. But he doesn’t see any action required on his part to make this happen. After all, “He knows, like everyone, that captive children are always freed in the moment of maximum danger.” (p. 103). That’s the faith of one convinced he’s part of the Elect.
Here we see one of the most well-known quotes from the book - “Don’t forget the real business of the War is buying and selling…. The true war is a celebration of markets.” (p. 105). In the interest of brevity, I’ll leave it to y’all to delve more into this critical section, but at least on the surface, it gives one of Pynchon’s more direct statements on the nature of war, its function, and its objectification of human life.
We also get a fascinating aside on Katje’s ancestor committing avian genocide against the dodoes, that most unfortunate of birds. Yet again, we’re examining the conflict of Preterite vs Elect, and how the fantasy of salvation is is a way to pacify those who are doomed in their current lives. If not that, then all is chance and the dodoes are “only our prey. God could not be that cruel.” (p. 111). But couldn’t he? The evidence doesn’t appear in god’s favor, does it?
Last but not least, we see Katje’s film being put to use to condition good ol’ octopus Grigori. But again, to what end?
Section 15
YouTube Recording (by yours truly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPgiptRr-W0
Mrs. Quoad! One of the funniest scenes in the book, and one of my favorites. It showcases both Pynchon’s visceral descriptive abilities as well as the insanity of prewar British candy.
Before the Disgusting English Candy Drill, we see Slothrop’s exit from a controlled, laboratory setting and instead being released “into the wild” for observation. He is moving toward Pointsman’s Rorschach-esque experiment, the nature of which is as-yet unknown, but which occupies much of Book 2.
This also marks the beginning of Slothrop’s (fully justified) paranoia. In the words of my father, “it’s not paranoia if they’re actually watching you.” Slothrop senses he’s being followed, observed, and starts to get a bit jumpy. Wouldn’t you?
My analysis is already far too long, so I’m grateful for this mercifully short and simple section. I think we all needed some levity after Blicero, no? Something tells me Pynchon was thinking the same thing in granting the reader this reprieve.
Section 16
YouTube Recording by u/DanteNathanael: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NapZnTK3TRU
In this section, we see more of Roger and Jessica’s history together, and the contrast between his more fearful, negative recognition of the System in which they live, and Jessica’s more carefree willingness to focus on the moments of joy she can find. But even nihilistic Roger finds some beauty on this Christmas eve walk.
An aside: the line, “who are all these people…. Freaks! Freeeeaks!” absolutely cracks me up.
The rest of this section alludes heavily to another poem by our friend T.S. Eliot, Journey of the Magi. It’s fairly short and accessible, and a truly beautiful work. It’s told from the point of view of one of the magi, looking back on his journey:
All this was a long time ago, I remember, / And I would do it again, but set down / This set down / This: were we led all that way for / Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly / We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death, / But had thought they were different; this Birth was / Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We get glimpses into how the War has worn down the population, drained them, recycled even the most mundane objects (e.g. toothpaste tubes) into material for the war. But we also see a reversal of this, with Spam tins recycled into toys for children. An echo of the death/rebirth cycle we previously saw with the king and the land, and in the poem above. A glimmer of hope?
Pynchon discusses how the War relies on the illusion of unity but in fact is founded on disunity, on division. Society and the System depend on broad perception of rational, ordered, mechanistic system. Surrealism, the removal of this illusion of borders, en masse is societal suicide. But also an inextricable part of it. As with the microcosm of Blicero’s oven, the end is baked into the origin. The ordered reality of the System is a facade - even time’s sped up thanks to the War. In fact, Roger’s first moment of optimism, of faith, comes after the choir’s act of “minor surrealism” - the removal of artificial boundaries between race, culture, language (p. 129).
The War destroys the death/rebirth cycle: its death is a finality, with just a gold start as a consolation prize for the dead who lay buried under the snow in a bomb crater, and humans subdivided to the point of being individually numbered. But for a second, for just a second on Christmas eve, people can forget that - even Roger, who enters the ultraparadoxical phase when sound of the choir overcomes his knee-jerk nihilism and actually brings him back around to hope, if just for that night.
Questions
  1. What are your thoughts on Professor Jampf’s experiment on poor Infant Tyrone? What might be variable “x”? Does that even matter?
  2. Is Slothrop “sensing” the rockets before they are launched? Are the rockets somehow drawn to the locations of his sexual forays? Is he reading the minds of the rocket operators? Or worse, and most terrifyingly, is it all somehow coincidence?
  3. What was your initial reaction to the section with Blicero, Katje, and Gottfried? Did your perspective change after you finished the entire section?
  4. Why didn’t Katja give up location of Schußstelle 3?
  5. How does “the Change” that Blicero is fixated on play into our larger themes? There’s an allusion here to both Ovid’s Metamorphoses and several Romantic poets. How would you define Blicero’s desires?
  6. The Mrs. Quoad scene seems to largely be a light aside to break up some pretty heavy material. But is there anything more to it? Any other insights to be pulled from the candy jar?
Well, if you made it all the way to the end of this, thank you. I think I put more energy into this than several college essays I turned in, but it was a lot of fun, and I’m blown away by how much I gained from this exercise. I’m excited to see what insights you have!
Addendum: great discussion so far! Thanks for the excellent insights and observations!
submitted by KieselguhrKid13 to ThomasPynchon [link] [comments]

The Binary Insider Review Binary Option Trading Signal Software 2014 Binary Insider By Rob Hertwell1 The Binary Insider Review-Binary Option Trading Signal Software 2014 Binary Insider By Rob Hertwell (Insider John) Binary App 810 Review,Watch This Options free - YouTube binary insider:Turn$300 to $ 543 EVERY 15 Minutes!Make money with the Pros!

For those with busy lives, automated binary options trading systems can be a huge help. However, so many of these robot trading programs turn out to be frauds so it is imperative that one take some time to read online reviews to see if a system is reliable before they use it for trading.. Insiders Circle is one of the many trading bots that has appeared online in the last year. The Binary Option Insider Pdf. Of course, the trader could have entered a single binary option or any multiple of the binary options you see in Figure 3 plus any of the daily or weekly options that were offered at the time Binary options are a new instrument of the financial market. USA REGULATION NOTICE: Please note if you are from the USA: some binary options companies are not regulated within the United States. These companies are not supervised, connected or affiliated with any of the regulatory agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), National Futures Association (NFA), Securities and Exchange Profit Insider Pro is a SCAM Review! Profit Insider Pro is a dangerous SCAM binary options auto trading system that was only recently launched in end March 2016 (webpage: profitinsiderpro.com) It’s simple presentation do looks convincing at first however once we have identify a several scam-like behavior, there is no doubt that this is one of the most dangerous scam there is! Legal Insider Bot Is A Scam; The Secret Millionaires Society Binary Options Scam; The Real Review Of Ataraxia7 Binary Options Software; iFollow Signals, Will You? BinaryOptionBot 2.0, The Second Wave; FreeBinaryOptionsystem.com Scam; AutoBinarySignals.com Review; What To Look For In A Binary Options Service; Binary Option Fraud: Will They Never

[index] [18951] [15727] [21134] [9276] [12838] [969] [6538] [15339] [25939] [20224]

The Binary Insider Review Binary Option Trading Signal Software 2014 Binary Insider By Rob Hertwell1

Best Binary Options Strategy 2020 - 2 Minute Strategy LIVE TRAINING! - Duration: 43:42. ... CNA Insider 217,908 views. 45:39. Honey Bee Inspection (((That Brood Though 🙌))) ... Binary Options Scams (DO NOT TRUST THESE PRODUCTS) Play all In the binary options industry, we are inundated with scam products. Part of our job is to expose these scams so that you can trade safely. open a free account now: http://option.go2jump.org/SHb7oZ with virtuall money after you sign in: http://option.go2jump.org/SHb7oZ intrinsic value of an optio... Binary Options Trading System- Free Download Best Strategy Trade Binary Options Signals Live Online. Binary Options Trading System- Free Download Best Strategy Trade Binary Options Signals Live Online. ... Download The Binary Options Insider Software F... Show more. This item has been hidden. Trading binary options is an increasingly popular way for new investors to make a serious amount of earnings using today's most common investment tools. ... Insider Secrets How To Make $593 in 60 ...

Flag Counter