Just to point to another possibility, since the drivers right hand is not in shot, even though his left hand is carefully poised over the steering wheel for the whole shot, it also looks like he pulled hard on the steering wheel with his right hand.
That might explain the car trying to re-route on the display, although I'm not even sure it does. To me it looks like the black line disappears into compression artefacts at just the right time.
Mostly I think we don't have enough evidence either way and speculating just expresses our desire for the technology to work or not.
Gotta give you that. He still might have moved the steering wheel with his thigh though ;-)
Crazy how it handled a shitty situation like around 6:55 in https://streamable.com/grihhc but failed there. Guess that shows what most of the ADAS engineers already know, the really hard part are those last few percentage points to make it actually reliable.
Hmm. I usually have no problem sending to lkml using iOS’s mail app. Gmail also works if I tell it to format as plain text, but the editor is all kinds of buggy in plain text mode.
FWIW, I don’t subscribe to lkml. Instead I point thunderbird at lore.kernel.org’s NNTP feed for the rare occasions in which I need to reply to an on-list message.
To the extent that the list’s rules make it hard to get feedback, I consider this a problem. The whole mailing list is in the middle or a giant migration, and I’ll see if I can convince the new overlords to be less strict. (I usually get Linux email directed to me via MAINTAINERS, so this issue doesn’t affect me personally too much. The x86 alias isn’t part of vger and does not have the text hangup, at least to my knowledge.)
Apple Mail has a drop down menu to convert the mail to plaintext. Format-->Make Plain Text, it's even got a hotkey CMD+SHIFT+T. You can even default it to be in plain text under Composing settings in the Preferences.
I don't post to this specific list, so there might be weird issues I'm not aware of but...
Gmail has the plain text option behind the 3dot menu in the bottom right corner. Apple Mail deserves to die a fiery death and I refuse to support it but "Format" -> "Make plain text" *may* send a plain text message, or not depending on the OS X lottery. You can force Apple Mail with "Preferences" -> "Composing" -> "Message Format" -> "Plain Text" to compose plain text messages. Or you can use an actual mail client.
An "actual mail client" is any mail client that speaks SMTP. This "use a real X" or "real programmers always do X this way" stuff is why many tech communities are considered hostile and toxic, especially to newcomers. It's childish in personal settings and unprofessional in work settings.
The funny thing is that most of the people who continue to hold these attitudes weren't even around or on the internet when it was slow and expensive to sling around rich text or binaries. I mean, I was born in the 80s and got an account with my local ISP in the early 90s, after spending a few years hanging out on BBSes playing door games (anyone remember Virtual Sysop?). I agree that binaries or anything other than plain text was a pain to deal with back then; I had a 2400 baud modem, and even when I managed to get something faster, the phone lines in my area were too noisy to give me anything faster than 19.2kbps. And I'm not some greybeard either; I wasn't around when 300 baud was state-of-the-art.
But we've moved on from that time. It feels like the height of arrogance and gatekeeping to look down on someone who just wants to be able to italicize or bold some text in their emails sometimes.
> But we've moved on from that time. It feels like the height of arrogance and gatekeeping to look down on someone who just wants to be able to italicize or bold some text in their emails sometimes.
does rich email formatting still make a mess on mailing lists? most clients send a plaintext part, sure, but is it well formatted?
i think it's okay for a team to have customs, and even engage in a little gatekeeping. it's not that much to ask considering how much effort goes in from long time contributors.
last i heard github was adding features to actually make it harder to submit drive by PRs because exhausted maintainers were finding themselves further exhausted by uninvested contributors making superfluous contributions. (for events or name recognition or whatever)
> last i heard github was adding features to actually make it harder to submit drive by PRs because exhausted maintainers were finding themselves further exhausted by uninvested contributors making superfluous contributions.
>>It feels like the height of arrogance and gatekeeping to look down on someone who just wants to be able to italicize or bold some text in their emails sometimes.
I really disagree with this part of your post. Plain text is just that, plain text. By definition there is no bold and no italics. We can talk about the the weird technical limitations and requirements for submitting inline patches all night if you like but I'm not sure what you are even complaining about aside from the technical limitations of plain text emails. If you think this is gatekeeping and it keeps you from expressing yourself I don't even know what to say.
> An "actual mail client" is any mail client that speaks This "use a real X" or "real programmers always do X this way" stuff is why many tech communities are considered hostile and toxic, especially to newcomers. It's childish in personal settings and unprofessional in work settings.
Isn't it perfectly justified in "use the right tool for a job" situations? If someone tells me not to hammer nails in with a pair of pliers, I'd hardly consider it "unprofessional" or "childish". If tool A requires you to use tool B for interoperability, I would imagine a reasonable person would simply use tool B, and not complain about people being "hostile" or "toxic" for suggesting to do so.
I use a client that does make it easy, but I shouldn't have to worry about this. Mailing lists are basically full of people who use email in an exceedingly specific way no one outside of mailing list enthuiasts do anymore. I use a graphical email client, as do my coworkers, as do our customers. We don't care about top vs. bottom replies, plain text vs. email, etc. - those who do have lost touch with the average email user.
For those of you wanting an explanation of what I meant here, this is a perfect example of it. I do actually have aerc installed now. I just think it's annoying that I had to change my perfectly good workflow that is enough to get me hired at large companies for this.
> (this is NOT an invitation to get plaintext email mansplained to me, doing so will get you blocked)
Was my comment mansplaining? I'm genuinely curious.
Apple Mail sucks and I'm always shocked how many people think it's "good enough". All the Apple apps are barely functional but fall short when it comes to replace groupware (or actual standard compliant clients. Don't even get me started what Apple Contacts does to vCard).
>>I just think it's annoying that I had to change my perfectly good workflow that is enough to get me hired at large companies for this.
The translation/context of the passage in the article was "look, I know how to send plaintext email, I just wish I didn't have to jump through these hoops, so please don't come and try to teach me how to do it" and that is kind of what your comment does.
Which is why I asked what the issue was and the author replied he/she was using Gmail/Apple Mail. I can see using the lkml with Apple Mail being difficult since Apple Mail sucks but sending plain text mails with Gmail should just work and nobody should have to change their email client if they are fine with using Gmail.
Even not using lkml, it's a standard conforming mailing list that (presumably) will accept any plain text mail just fine and I do not see why anybody would need to install a separate email client like aerc just to use this mailing list. So, to me it read "I know how plaintext emails work but for some reason my workflow does not work so I changed it to include something else" and I was curious as to why... Curse me for asking? Curse me for damning Apple Mail? Idk... I guess curse me for being curious and trying to help a fellow nerd out while shitting on Apple Mail at the same time.
I don't want to make like, a federal case out of this, but since you're asking:
She said, in effect, "don't explain to me how to do plaintext email, I don't need/want that," and though your comment is in small part calling out Apple, it's mostly an explanation of how to do plaintext in Mail.app and Gmail, and then a suggestion to not use it because it's not "real." So it's largely a "let me show you how to do this right" kind of comment.
This might be out of date, but IIRC GMail, in plain text mode, will break lines at 72 or 80 characters or something like that, which will mangle inline patches. LKML's policy prefers (requires?) that you send patches inline and not as attachments.
Which is pretty interesting. Apparently Outlook mangles inline patches for the lkml as well to the point that they are unusable and that would have been an interesting talking point in and of itself.
But apparently talking about this is not in scope of this post and trying to piece together the issues just gets you downvoted so... Thanks for your advice, I was not aware that Gmail clobbers plain text mails, I guess there is more to it then getting your mail client to send plain text email. Maybe some explanation of the subject would have been nice.
I am going to over-explain in detail in my reply. You may already know this but I know we have a lot of neuro-divergent folks, people who have difficulty understanding social interactions, and similar on HN so perhaps it will be of benefit. I am in no way trying to imply that you or anyone else isn't aware of these factors. Nor am I trying to claim that my explanations are the full and complete explanations.
In your first post you said:
>I don't post to this specific list, so there might be weird issues I'm not aware of
So right off the bat you are declaring "I do not have the same problem as the OP". This is in response to a post where the OP said "I know how to solve this problem, please do not offer me explanations". So you jump in with admittedly no experience with this specific issue where someone explicitly told you they don't want your input... to give your input. That in and of itself is rude behavior. Especially when this is something anyone with a moderate technical background can figure out with a Google search so it isn't likely to be unique or useful.
Even if you didn't intend it (and I'm sure you did not!) the implication is that she's non-technical so she either wouldn't know what to search for or would have a difficult time figuring out the instructions so your input will obviously save her time and effort. Because she is technical (as is obvious because she's talking about emailing the Linux Kernel mailing list which is an extremely geeky thing to be doing) and perfectly capable of solving the problem herself (as she indicated in the post) it can sometimes seem like you're being sexist by assuming otherwise. Obviously this is not the intent of everyone (or even most) people but the OP has no way of knowing that and has likely experienced similar behavior that was later proven to be driven by sexism. So it leaves her in a difficult spot: how many people who ignored my request not to explain the solution are doing it because they are rude, how many are doing it because they think "she's just a woman, she won't understand these things", and how many are doing it just to troll on purpose? And if she replies in a negative way is this one of the men who will start harassing her, trying to dox her, or stalk her to "put her in her place"? That's a small percentage of men who do that but she has no way of knowing which ones are the unhinged ones and which ones aren't.
The other major problem with this behavior is that it is exhausting when it happens frequently. It becomes tiring to have to politely explain yourself over and over. Any human on the planet in this situation - unless they have super-human levels of patience - will eventually stop offering fully qualified explanations. When women do this they are often perceived negatively or as having a bad personality if they try to enforce boundaries or request respect (see below about violence).
The reason it is called "mansplaining" is partially because it is something done by men more frequently because growing up girls are often socialized to be as quiet and unobtrusive as possible while a subset of boys are socialized to believe everyone should listen to their thoughts and opinions. Obviously that is not always the case. As a subject matter expert and man myself I don't have a big problem with the term because while I have had people "mansplain" how a product I work on works (incorrectly I might add) I have never had a woman attempt to do that... it is exclusively men who try this with me. Millions of people use it so it isn't a completely tiny sample size, but I do admit it is anecdotal.
As they grow up women are far more likely to have some random man they don't know get angry and physically grab them or threaten them if they tell the man they don't need his input or they want to be left alone. This is something I've witnessed happen to women many times while never having seen the opposite (a random woman a man does not know getting irate, in that man's face, screaming at him, or physically preventing him from leaving and/or hurting him because he politely told her he wasn't interested in her input. Emphasis on "random" person here, not someone known to the victim). How does this relate? One of the reasons women are socialized to always be nice, polite, and quiet is because of the risk of harassment or violence from random men she does not know. Do most men do this? No. But enough that it is quite common. If you really took the time to listen to the women you know (and didn't try to argue or excuse away the behavior) most of them would have at least a few stories like this. Then survey the men you know to find out how often they've had anything similar happen to them. Again emphasis on random strangers, not ex partners, coworkers, etc. (For my own pre-emption posting that you're a man and it happened to you once is not helpful. Obviously it happens, it is just far less common. It is still unacceptable regardless of gender).
Be careful. Writing out steps to send email in the way the maintainers of the Linux kernel desire might be deemed as manspaining. You wouldn’t want to get blocked, would you?
The author already explained upthread that she knows how to do that and has a working setup to do so. But that process is onerous because LKML’s workflow is technologically backwards. (That’s my claim, not hers.) Assuming that someone with that kind of technical chops is too incompetent to Google “plain text gmail” is pretty disrespectful.
There is no good answer to why, except to improve fingerprinting. Which is most of what this site shows, the amount of data a site, even open in the background, can use to continuously fingerprint you. Or maybe I misjudge what this is supposed to do.
I believe that you think that your answers are true but my desktop will report 12, my work laptop will report 16, my macbook will report 16 as well, my work desktop will report 64 (my surface laptop will report 12 as well, my ipad pro will report 6... I can continue this for some time).
Which machine do you think has the best performance for your app?
Those numbers actually mean something. That’s approximately how many concurrent threads I would want to use. I’m not sure I follow the point you’re making
I was hoping this is Dragon Age Origins but it is just another crypto scheme. Or whatever this is...
>If a majority and at least 10M ZRX in voting power are cast in support of the proposal, it is queued in the (optional) Timelock.
I have been on the internet since 1996 and that sentence just sounds like "we'll print money unless you stop us". Which is great, even though I have not been part of this particular money making scheme, I have profited of similar crypto monetizations.
I think I do not understand stuff like this anymore: "We created an on-chain binding governance system able to perform arbitrary actions on a 2M ZRX community-owned Treasury, seed-financed by 0x Labs. The smart contracts work in orchestration with 0x’s existing staking system, for what concerns both the voting power delegation management and votes cadence."
Even having read the ToS from https://0x.org/terms it feels like I understand even less now. It sounds like you put money on their ledger and you are fine with whatever.
I think I don't understand crypto and I would like to play DAO. I share a really popular Dragon Age Inquisition spreadsheet if you are interested in something completely different: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16Pt3AMXjBogM7UZ7Y92-.... I'll approve your edit or copy requests soonish...
The snark in this comment, and the general aggresiveness on HN to a new technology is becoming tiring.
If you don’t know about it and want to join the discussion then research it or askquestions rather than armchair dismissing it.
There is a lot of new jargon in crypto but what scientific field doesnt have jargon? I’m no expert but have read a bit about crypto and while I may not back every project out there I think the basis of using digital signatures and blockchains for registration of immutable data and verification of it has a lot of potential.
Sorry it wasn’t about your dragon game :) I may go and read about that today
The problem is it not a "new technology" -- the original Ethereum DAO was made 5 years ago. The arguments for and motivations for the 0x DAO read exactly the same as 5 years ago, and the same as many other decentralized government schemes that came after.
Is this going to be better than the previous N attempts? I seriously doubt it.
Given the massive negative externalities and lack of widespread adoption beyond speculation and crime after more than ten years, I think that snark is a reasonable default response to any cryptocurrency-related news.
By that logic, we should have given up on the idea of cell phones in the late 20th century[1]. FWIW Motorola released the first commercial mobile phone in 1983.
The market for mobile communication was well established. In the mid 80s, car phones were already popular for rich executives and other people who needed to be accessible on the go, and it was the late 90s when flip phones started becoming accessible for middle class. In 2004, polyphonic ringtones raked in $4 billion in sales.
Bitcoin was released in 2009. By that metric, we should be far past the car phone stage by no, but we're still trying to figure out who needs this thing.
If we're talking about car phones, which I admittedly know very little about, those were released in 1946[1]. So that would mean it was ~40 years until they became popular for rich executives.
I think it's fair to say that crypto's "release" was in 2009. But the point being, technologies rarely hit "widespread adoption" within 10 years of release. I'd be curious to hear counterexamples.
Car phone service in Chicago was launched in 1946 and reached capacity within the year.
>On October 2, 1946, Motorola communications equipment carried the first calls on Illinois Bell Telephone Company's new car radiotelephone service in Chicago.[2][3] Due to the small number of radio frequencies available, the service quickly reached capacity.
Widespread adoption of mobile phones was limited by availability (or distribution) of radio frequencies. Laptops were adopted between 1987 and 1991 as soon as the input device was figured out. The 3G smart phone was figured out between 2003 and 2006 (the time most markets took to adopt 3G data). The modern touchscreen smartphone was figured out between 2007 and 2010 (the rise of the iPod touch and Android).
Wait a second, you are calling my comment out for snark but I'm not allowed to call the OP news post "indistinguishable bullshit". Oh wait, I did not call the post bullshit...
You can join the discussion about DAI, it'll take about 5 minutes on your end if you google DAI spreadsheet and you will be able to farm on the top end of every other DAI player. It'll also not cost you any money.
If you can not explain your crypto bullshit maybe it is my prerogative to call out your bullshit. Maybe I think smart contracts are dumb, digital signatures is something that has been solved in 1996 and your blockchain is just dumb.
Sorry my post wasn't pretending your bullshit is magic. Maybe go read about something else.
It's really weird though when you realize that jEveAssets and the tools accompanying your API access are more capable that anything your bank makes available to you and the only issue is how they integrate with your banks bond/fund structure.
Even weirder when you realize that your Eve Online market tools and their historic data access might be more capable then what you account manager at your coop has access too.
I mean, of course there is regulation and there are reasons, but come on... Regional ammo/torpedo/missile markets may be far more volatile then a lot of real markets...
The principles behind the technology are very simple, but actually implementing it in a way that is secure, decentralized, and robust is incredibly difficult and requires a great deal of technical sophistication. Since a lot of this stuff is some what new, people take liberties to create jargon for describing it. It's not that unreasonable, when people come up with something they like to name it and sometimes those names can be fancy or unfamiliar.
The main problem is that running programs on Ethereum is expensive, every computation costs money. Past efforts to create a fully automated stock market on Ethereum ran into these costly problems and the end result is that the exchange ends up having very little liquidity or users. Imagine a version of eBay were just placing a bid costs you money. Well with a market you place bids and cancel them, and often time do that repeatedly as you gain new information. If every single one of these actions costs you money and you need to wait potentially 20-30 seconds for your action to be confirmed by Ethereum (think of Ethereum as a very very slow computer), well people become hesitant to participate.
0x is a system to remove the vast majority of an exchange's function off Ethereum and only use Ethereum as a settlement layer or to resolve potential disputes. To do this, they introduce a market maker system where market makers act as middle men between people adding liquidity and people removing liquidity. These market markets do not use Ethereum to act so a user can interact with them without worrying about fees or time delays. To be a market marker, you need to put up some collateral into a pool, if you perform your function correctly then you get rewarded with fees, if you make a mistake or try to screw someone over, you lose your collateral.
The market maker system 0x uses is what allows basically 99% of activity to operate outside of Ethereum and drastically reduce costs and improve performance. If everyone acts honestly then things run smooth and cheap. If someone decides to do something funny, then and only then does the power of the Ethereum blockchain get involved and a dispute resolution process is engaged, there is a cryptographic system to verify which participant is at fault and that participant gets penalized.
That's all 0x is in a nutshell, it's a system that markets can participate in to run cheap and fast decentralized exchanges.
Okay so now the question is... who runs 0x itself? Who makes decisions about 0x, its future, how will the exchange improve over time?
This announcement is an answer to that question. Instead of 0x itself being a centralized entity, 0x is creating a set of computer programs that will run on Ethereum where future upgrades are voted on by people who own 0x tokens (ZRX). Someone can propose an upgrade to the system (by uploading an Ethereum program to the Ethereum blockchain), people who own 0x tokens can vote on the proposal. If the proposal gets the necessary votes, then the proposed program will receive write permissions to resources associated with the 0x system.
One of the resources the program will get write access to is a pool of 0x tokens. Initially there are 2 million 0x tokens that will be placed in a pool, and proposals can make use of those tokens to fund activities or do who knows what, it's basically some seed-financing to get the ball rolling.
JSTOR and the Harvard press needs to just go away. As someone who does IT for a university library in Germany JSTOR access is just ridiculous, even ignoring their fees.
I think it's genuinely ridiculous; academics working on really important topics for the current age, from society, to legal theory, to anthropology, to novel engineering are gatekept by publishers. I've wanted to read the full text to a paper I thought I will gain a lot from, something I can cite in an argument, something to enrich me and make me think. I can't do that, because I don't have access to the paper/book/whatever. At best, I have access to an inconvenient quarter of it on Google Books. I can't buy it for less than 60 euros, sometimes much more.
I genuinely think that the fact academic work is hidden inside ridiculously expensive books and publisher paywalls is a reason why some people have given up on trying to change the world. They literally can't afford access to the tools that will support them or they can argue against.
The independent researcher is at best five years behind current theories, and at worst dead.
In a sense some may find this more of a band-aid than anything else, but I've found 95% of the book I want to read are available through libgen[0] and close to 99% of papers through sci-hub [1]. Sure enough, the book referenced in the great-great grandparent to your post is on libgen and I now have a PDF.
It really is unfortunate though, that there are a great many books one can only get a physical copy of for many times what they originally cost.
I wonder if you could take payments in bitcoin to print out epubs/pdfs of books in high quality, bind them, and ship them to people. The bitcoin's to avoid the copyright ninjas; you could try to silk-road the whole operation. It'll be easier once we have better drones and automated cars.
Honestly, I'm more inclined to just mail someone some cash in exchange for their services printing/binding/mailing the book back. Seems a little more straightforward than transferring bitcoin and having a noisy drone drop a book on my lawn. Plus, why would I want all my transactions on a public ledger? ;)
I'm great with it! Thanks for pointing me, though my point was more general, I suppose - unfortunately libgen doesn't have everything, hence my 'five years' remark :)
Everything you say is true, but an additional part of the problem is that books/papers/whatever tend to lag behind thinking and discussion by 1 to 5 years too. If you’re not an insider, it can be extra hard to have a voice in the conversation.
In context of this satellite, they is the MAEU (Myanmar Aerospace Engineering University) and the reason the satellite is being held is because apparently JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) can't reach the rector of the MAEU to make sure what the satellite would be used for.
So, all in all, Japan is being careful and the situation in Myanmar is "undetermined". I think it is questionable where the "spying concern" is coming from, aside from being clickbait.
>Officials at JAXA could not be reached for comment. MAEU did not respond to calls seeking comment, nor did a spokesman for Myanmar’s junta.
It could be used for spying, because it's a satellite with cameras. If it has the capabilities to be used for spying is unclear, all the data would go through Japan anyway. Japan does not want to comment on it, persons responsible at MAEU are in prison or in hiding and the junta would probably lie anyway.
Maybe I am underestimating them, but I feel like the more likely scenario is a government and it's agencies in disarray. Would the new governing entity even know or care about that particular project right now?
“Spying” looks like editorial click bait. It isn’t even mentioned in the article. The concern I think is domestic use to commit genocide against their own people.
> “We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that,” one of the officials, a manager of the project, told Reuters, asking not to be identified.
I dare you to find a quote by anyone familiar with the satellite citing military use.
He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
Nice bit of goal post rearrangement there, given an explicit direct quote in the article stating the satellite could have military applications. On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
>He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
How do you get "the satellite could have military applications" from "The satellite was not designed for that"?
>On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
You mean aside from "We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that"? Why do you think the HRW has any capability to assess the possible applications of a satellite? Nothing on the HRW website either...
Yes, use by the military to continue committing genocide against their own people. “Spying” in geopolitical context usually means use against other countries.
As someone currently shopping for a new car, the current CX-5, the current MX-5 and the Mazda 6 come with a touchscreen setup.
*EDIT: Also all the VW models in the Golf and Passat Range come with a touchscreen, the low-end Fiats are the same, Mercedes is no different, even the low-end at Dacia comes with a touchscreen. If you can find a car manufacturer that does not think a touchscreen is the way to go, I'll be surprised.
\EDIT2: Since I looked at everything else in my neighborhood as well... Audi does a touchscreen center console for everything. You can get the Renault Twingo without any electronics but if you take the climate control you also get a touch screen. Honda and Hyundai will include a touch screen with everything as well. The only cars I got offered without a touchscreen center console is the Mitsubishi outlander and there it is only 1 model.
All new cars are mandated to have back-up cameras. This means they have to put a screen in the car for every new car. It probably doesn't add much to make it a touch screen... but the irony here is that we added backup cameras for safety, and now we've got a dangerous distraction piece on the car.
My mazda 3 has a touchscreen too - but its disabled while the car is moving. Every function is quite accessible from the physical controls, and they're in a good location, good tactile feedback and different sizes of buttons to knobs etc.
It is clearly designed away from "touchscreen", but if you are parked it functions fine with touch.
>>That said; it is amazing how many sign languages can come to similar conclusions due to "always trying to find the simplest way of explaining yourself".
That does sound like most languages though. So maybe sign language is a language and everything local is just a dialect?
I'm sorry if I come of insensitive but I don't get it.
No, the type of sounds can be grouped into distinct language families and further down into language "branches". I just don't see (no pun intended) how this translates into different sign languages.
Any time you get enough deaf people in one place, who don't already have a signed language, they invent one. In times and places where signed languages have been suppressed, they've popped up all over the place at schools for the deaf. There's not much reason for any of the languages to share grammar and such with each other, since they're effectively unrelated. You wouldn't expect Japanese and Navaho to use similar grammar or vocabulary, right? Same here.
[Not Deaf, but I studied ASL and deaf culture for a few years at 2 colleges and in private lessons.]
There certainly are relationships between sign languages; A(merican)SL and French SL are arguably two dialects of the same language, or at least they were in relatively recent memory. Others are distantly related or unrelated; B(ritish)SL is absolutely unintelligible to signers of ASL and arose separately, for instance. Many of the modern global sign languages are related to one or the other of those families (and might be "dialects" as you want to call them, or might be further apart and thus merely "related languages"), but there are a few others that are not, including one—Nicaraguan Sign Language—that arose from scratch less than 40 years ago.
The symbol for 1 in different orthographies, such as: 1 I ١ ― 𒐕 一 etc ...
The words for father/mother are often a bilabial and open syllable combination regardless of language family origin.
The point is that while the details of the languages (sign, oral, written) could be different, there are some human affinities that make provide commonality. Another meta-pattern might that common words in many languages are often monosyllabic, though this is less universal than the two examples I gave above AFAIK.
That might explain the car trying to re-route on the display, although I'm not even sure it does. To me it looks like the black line disappears into compression artefacts at just the right time.
Mostly I think we don't have enough evidence either way and speculating just expresses our desire for the technology to work or not.