I've owned 5 Z-Flips. Never had issues.
You've owned five phones in the last six years? Either you're lying in saying you've never had issues, or you've not had any one phone long enough for issues to show up. That's like saying "my car's never had issues - I buy a new one every year!"
I blame Starbucks for ruining coffee. Their servings are mostly milk and syrups and crap. I haven't added anything to my coffee, since I was 8. Once you go black, you never go back.
Is that Starbucks' fault, or their customers? I, too, roll my eyes at the hoards that line up for their wickedly expensive, sugary, flavored milk with a hint of coffee, but I guess that's capitalism.
I also drink black coffee exclusively, and Starbucks is not bad for that. Indeed, while I'm on the road, it can oftentimes be the only palatable option (versus Dunkin or black water's at the gas station). If there's a local coffee shop, I'll opt for that, but in plenty of places it's Starbucks or nothin'.
Shaking seats, loud sirens, maybe even a little water spray?
Or, like a good Johnny Cab, self-destruct while trying to murder the fare.
Sure most parts are unavoidably car-specific, but for most wear items things are mostly standardized enough to find a part that will work.
Are you suggesting that an EV's battery is a wear item? The evidence from the field - millions of vehicles fielded over the last two decades - suggests that the battery will outlive the car itself, or last at least as long as the internal combustion engine of a conventional vehicle. (The battery is zero maintenance, too, which cannot be said of the ICE.)
For gasoline and diesel vehicles, fuel is, actually, standardized
Well, if we're talking about fuel, then yes: electrons are standardized! Heck, even the delivery mechanisms (i.e., the electrical grid) are standardized - at least regionally.
If you're going to complain about EV batteries not being standardized between vehicles, well: try transplanting the fuel tank from a 1999 Silverado into a 2018 BWM, or vice-versa. Or really any of the parts, come to think of it.
there are only a limited number of batteries for ICE vehicles: while it's a large collection, they're relatively standard and if you have the space you can generally fit a larger one than you need in the same vehicle without problems.
If you want to talk about the 12-V batteries in cars - nothing about them except the chemistry and nominal voltage is standard. They kinda come in roughly the same blocky shape, but it's not at all given that you could lift the battery from one vehicle and drop it in another. If you waltz into an auto parts store and say "hey, my car needs a new battery", the clerks will immediately ask for the Year, Make, and Model of the vehicle (sometimes even the trim level). Why is that, if car batteries are as standardized and interchangeable as you think.
I can't see why X-Ray machines would care about gravity, they would work in space the same way as ever.
The summary talked about the potential challenges of imaging in microgravity, where the imager and the human are more prone to relative movement from floating around. And although astronauts are highly educable, they do not presently get trained as x-ray techs.
A different potential concern could be noise: the image sensor isn't just going to be getting the incident x-rays (after passing through the human) but also catching whatever the ambient background radiation level could be. That could have made the resulting images quite noisy, lowering their diagnostic quality.
A third consideration could be heat. X-Ray sources come in various forms, but often throw off a lot of heat for the amount of light they produce. That heat needs to be pulled from the source and dumped to environment, otherwise the source will burn out quickly. On Earth this can often be done with passive convection. In micro-g, that doesn't work - you may need to incorporate active cooling.
None of these things were likely going to be problems. But until you actually test it in flight, you don't know. The same situation existed for using medical ultrasound in space - it probably would work, but they experimented a bit before deploying it to the ISS.
We know "technically" we can push a jet high enough that a space craft could then be launched from to have the first stage be a completely reusable by landing it right after the vehicle unmounts from the launch vehicle
There was an old commenter on Slashdot that like to point out that "Mach 6 at 60,000 ft altitude is only 6% of the way to orbit". The math is just approximate, but tells you something about the (poor) viability of air-launching to orbit. See this detailed video from Everyday Astronaut.
Once you electrify the trailer with "assist", it might as well be given the ability to move around "on its own", slowly, around enclosed cargo ports, to facilitate the loading and whatnot, and come meet their tow out front, saving the time of the driver and the truck.
Except that the trailer only has a single electrified axle. It has no steering capability (it doesn't even front wheels to support its weight!), no sensors to be aware of its surroundings, no compute power to make sense of the world and navigate to its destination.
It's highly likely that we'll end up with "animated death prisms", given enough time, but it's a giant leap from what this article is talking about to that. Any well-resourced engineer could stick a battery and motor onto a trailer. What you're talking about is Level 5 autonomous vehicles, which only barely exist after a few hundred billion dollars of development.
These screamingly hilarious gogs ensure owners of X Ray Gogs to be the life of any party. -- X-Ray Gogs Instructions
