It isn't strange to use your non-dominant hand for things, no. Maybe most people do lean toward using their dominant hand for everyday tasks, but I think it's a matter of habit for most things. "Non-dominant" doesn't mean "nearly useless".
I would say it is a bit strange for your friends to pay a lot of attention to which hand you use to unlock doors.
A problem with finding a counterexample might be that any widespread desire for something that doesn't exist could make people think it exists, so any possible example seems likely to be disputed. There's a reason people are far more likely to believe in heaven than hell. People believe in what they want to believe in, and that desire isn't proof of anything but a construct in their brain that they think represents something real.
That said, I hope someone comes up with an example, because I've seen this type of rhetoric before (C.S. Lewis had a version of it), and while the logical problems with it are obvious, picking it apart would take a verbose argument that the kinds of people who like these kinds of fortune-cookie apologetics would have no problem tuning out. A quick example would be very convenient.
Replays later showed Ricciardo’s hands being thrown around in the cockpit due to him still holding the steering wheel when he impacted the wall, with the Australian visibly in discomfort when he stepped out of the car.
Didn't Alonso break his hand last season in a similar way? I wonder if it's possible to have some kind of safety training or procedure to prevent this kind of injury.
I've had the 154CM version of this for years, love it.
I don't think the usual portrayal of the issue is that animals can exploit any other animal that is less intelligent; it's more like, there's a minimum level of intelligence or consciousness for human rights. You might call it a cutoff. Which could be seen as a contrivance to give humans the right to exploit other animals, but the problem with dismissing this view as self-serving is that the logic cuts both ways. Humans are the only animal that is expected to care about morality in the first place; nobody is getting mad at cheetahs for eating ostriches. So it's hard to argue that there is no cutoff relating to morality at humans, the question is exactly what that cutoff entails.
Not sure about India, but NASA has used GoPros on Moon-related stuff. Artemis I had 4 GoPros on the ends of its solar panels when it orbited the Moon last year.
Good article, lots of specifics as to what the accusations against TSMC are. Also, it appears there is a paper trail to back them up:
Earlier this month, after multiple health and safety complaints were sent to the state over the past year, TSMC and the state of Arizona signed a workplace-safety agreement. Both sides agreed to subject the company to higher safety standards than required at the federal level, including closer oversight and increased training and safety visits.
Feels like this was meant to be a TV commercial.
The article only has one line about this, noting that what platform this interview would take place on is unclear. I just checked and it looks like he's continued to do a show on Twitter despite Fox News sending him a cease-and-desist letter, so presumably it would be there.
The term ‘AI’ (Artificial Intelligence) refers to computer systems that can perform tasks that would typically require human intelligence,
That's everything computers do, though, isn't it? Pocket calculators would have fit this definition of AI in the 1970s. In the '60s, "computer" was a human job title.
Every once in a while Steve gets visibly upset about corporate misbehavior, but I've been watching GN for a few years, and the news segment where he was replying to Linus's dismissive forum post is the angriest I've ever seen him.
This all sounds extremely familiar. Owning the libs as a show for their base of support back home.