I seem to be the only one here who’s gotten their wish.
I will invent the ACL patch. If you’re a football coach and it appears your player gets a season/career -ending ACL injury, just slap the patch on the knee, wait 5 minutes and its healed.
I guess that’s better than, ‘Don’t worry sir, they’ll ride in with wear’
There already is one, I’m not sure how painless it is, but I will always go for it when I have hiccups and it has never failed me or anyone I’ve given it to: a wedge of lime with a dash of bitters. (It does help if you’re in a bar when you get the hiccups.)
Why can’t they create a harmless drug that can be given to children that prevents crying? You could give your child a dose before you go out in public. They could still shed tears and gape their mouths and turn beet red, but no sound would come out.
There already is one…a wedge of lime with a dash of bitters.
First of all, there is the issue of ease; some garments are designed to fit loosely, some are designed to fit tightly. The actual measurement of the items will of course then be different, even if they are designed for the same body size.
Beyond that, there were actually several attempts to standardize women’s clothing sizes, starting in the 1930’s and most recently by the American Society for Testing and Materials in the 1990’s.
Sewing patterns generally conform to a set of standard sizes (Butterick’s chart) (which is incidentally very different from that used for ready-to-wear), but the sizing used for ready-to-wear, especially in women’s/misses’ sizes, is a mess due to “vanity sizing”. The idea here is that customers, in general, are more willing to buy an item of clothing from Brand X if they can fit into a smaller size garment than the garment from Brand Y, so manufacturers simply label things as smaller / make them bigger than the standard charts would indicate. How much bigger depends on the manufacturer, hence the mess.
This results in size drift, which is cumulative over time; the bust measurement corresponding to size 16, for instance, was 34 inches in the 1940’s but 38 inches in the 1960’s, and is still about 38 inches for a sewing pattern today but anywhere up to 42.5 inches in ready-to-wear. There is a Snopes article about Marilyn Monroe’s dress size, which was said to be 16, causing various people to assume she was fat… although size 16 in the 1950’s would be equivalent to about a size 10 today.
My impression is that vanity sizing is perceived to be enough of an incentive that clothing manufacturers would be unlikely to permanently adhere to any standard chart. There is a new European clothing standard that has just come out (Wikipedia article); we’ll see if it’s still relevant in 20 years.
For the terminally curious, the 10-12-14-etc sizing range for modern women’s clothing is based on the sizing for “misses” (i.e., adolescent girls, about 12 to 18 years) that was used around the 1920’s (when ready-to-wear took off); a size 12 was originally the size that would fit the “standard” 12-year-old girl. Adult women’s clothing was sized by measurement in inches (e.g., size 36 would fit a woman of 36 inches bust). Slender women were proud to say that they could still fit into a size 18, and thus size drift was born… and it’s also why women of small-to-average size today wear “misses” sizes rather than “women’s” sizes.
JRB (rabid vintage pattern collector and early-20th-century fashion maven)
I just keep my soap on the bristles of an upturned back brush - you know, the kind of brush you use to scrub your back - and it works perfectly. The original idea was to prevent that buildup of soap gunk where the soap sits in the shower, but a side benefit is that it makes the soap last longer also. I should be rich, I tell ya.
And for a sure-fire cure that you actually have in the house, try a teaspoon full of peanut butter. Never failed me, either, plus I get to eat a teaspoon of peanut butter. 
You made my day. Thanks!
Heh. This reminds me of an overheard conversation between two teenage girls on public transit who were on about how silly it is that cell-phones don’t come with a feature so that you could press a button on their charger to make them emit some sort of beacon sound to help you locate them when they’ve been mislaid. “Such a simple idea, and no-one does it! We could make a million dollars!”
I know teenaged girls think differently, but I still marvel at how they could both think it makes more sense to put an RF transmitter (uniquely paired with the individual phone) plus the other googaws required to enable such a feature, which would only be useful if your phone was near its base, instead of… I don’t know… using the existing method of making your phone ring, which can be done from just about anywhere. 
When you go to the dentist and have an x-ray and they put those cardboard thingies in your mouth and they cut into your gums. and you have to sit quietly and endure it while the technician runs behind the wall and takes the picture.
Why can’t they be softer and NOT cut into your gums? Or maybe my dentist is cheap and they really do exist.
I don’t know if they exist, either, but I do know that it is a form of torture to make you sit there and bite down on something that is cutting your gums when every instinct in your body is screaming, “That hurts! Quit it!”
This comes back to my whole barbaric dentistry industry thing again. I just don’t think anyone cares about making dentistry any less barbaric. You would think they would - how many more people would go to the dentist (and probably pay a whole lot more) for dentistry that didn’t involve needles and drilling and painful x-rays and painful root scalings and painful cleanings? And then maybe dentists wouldn’t be the most hated profession with the highest suicide rate.
And yes, I do know that sedation dentistry exists, but knocking me out for the procedure doesn’t make it any more cutting edge.