No, you said "but it really is an inferior technology.". It's not inferior if you need something completely safe, or if you're imaging something with good acoustic contrast, or if you need something that doesn't need its own room, or any other reason why you might prefer ultrasound over MRI or CT.
The fact that it's used at all would suggest a priori your comment is wrong.
Even if you want to restrict the scope of ultrasound being an inferior technology to only ultrasound being worse at producing images, that's not true either. Show me a CT or MRI showing what a Doppler ultrasound image shows, or that shows a real-time live 4-chamber view of the heart (to pick a couple of obvious examples - there are many more). So now you might say ultrasound is objectively worse at at producing images that CT and MRI excel at, at which point, what are you trying to say?
The fact that it's used at all would suggest a priori your comment is wrong.
Even if you want to restrict the scope of ultrasound being an inferior technology to only ultrasound being worse at producing images, that's not true either. Show me a CT or MRI showing what a Doppler ultrasound image shows, or that shows a real-time live 4-chamber view of the heart (to pick a couple of obvious examples - there are many more). So now you might say ultrasound is objectively worse at at producing images that CT and MRI excel at, at which point, what are you trying to say?