Huh?

San Diego Convention Center:
Total space 2,600,000 sq ft (240,000 m2)
Exhibit hall floor 615,700 sq ft (57,200 m2)

Las Vegas Convention Center:
Total space 4,600,000 sq ft (430,000 m2)
Exhibit hall floor 2,500,000 sq ft (230,000 m2)

Note: I'm not a scientist, and this is not my area of direct expertise, but my day job is preparing for these kind of events - I'll probably be corrected on some of the terminology/details, but here is my more-or-less layperson's crack at answering your question.

Not likely from these flares. The worst these would do, even if they were aimed directly at earth, is disrupt some radio-based communications, possibly de-orbit some LEO satellites, and cause people on airplanes to get more irradiated than normal. Oh, and the auroras would be visible quite a lot further from the poles than normal. Maaaybe cause a few isolated issues with electrical transmission. While these are pretty significant Solar flares, they can also be MUCH more powerful than even the largest of this series so far. Solar flares both cause emission of radiation, and that radiation, if directed towards earth, takes only 8 minutes or so to get here. They will also eject charged particles, called a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME). The CME can be ejected at a great range of velocities, and can take from hours to days to begin impacting earth (if directed at Earth at all). Those charged particles can induce current that can cause a wide variety of issues. There is concern that a major CME could wreak havoc on electrical transmission - maybe even blowing out transformers, and maybe even much smaller electronic devices. We haven't been hit my a major CME in the modern era, but there is concern that a Carrington-level event could result in major disruption to much of our technology all over the world and could even result in so much damage that it may take years or decades to recover. We really don't know how destructive such an event would be. The engineers that develop / operate our transmission networks often seem pretty confident that disconnects and other protective measures would prevent catastrophic damage, though many others disagree. Things COULD be even worse than the above - there's some reasonable evidence that solar flares may have been responsible for evolutionary bottlenecks/mass-extinction on Earth before. Though the odds of something that severe happening during our lifetimes is probably pretty remote. The kinds of flares so powerful to have that much impact are orders of magnitude more energetic than even the Carrington Event level flare.

I haven't seen any images from this to verify for myself, but the transmission recorded over the radio from the pilot of the trailing aircraft was the following "One of your nose tires just came off; it just rolled off the runway behind you." Because I'm lazy and don't want to spend a bunch of my time carefully explaining *why*, I'll simply say there's a fair bit of difference between a tire coming off and a wheel coming off - and if this is being reported incorrectly it's a bit irresponsible.

My doorbell camera is oriented adjacent to my front door and looks directly at my neighbor's house - theirs does the same for mine. A camera I have on my driveway also incidentally captures the sidewalk and street and can see portions of several other properties - similar story for additional cameras on my side and back yards. I thoughtfully installed my cameras to reduce intrusion on my neighbors as much as possible, but it's very difficult to completely eliminate my cameras capturing something that might be sensitive to one of my neighbors. If I choose to share recordings from my cameras with the police, I am also potentially sharing information on my neighbors and they were not provided the opportunity to consent.

Yep, also inhaled raw jet fuel or fuel vapors; and exposure to hydraulic fluid, engine oil, caustic cleaners, solvents, adhesives, ozone created by brushed motors in tools and equipment...

Yeah, of course it 'could have been successful,' as mass transit, but that simply was never the point. It was built in the era of 'Family-Friendly" Vegas, when MGM had a theme park out back, and the casinos were all volcanoes and pirate shows, and whatnot. The entire point of it was to make it look like Disney, put a photo of it in a brochure, and let Dad tell the wife "We're going to Vegas instead of Disney. Look! It's just as good for the kids, and we can have more fun." It was just marketing.

You're right about the escalation in costs, the move upmarket, and consolidation of the properties in the strip, though there are also new players that have been entering the market, such as Resorts World (owned by Genting Group) and Virgin Hotels. Reduced competition is probably a factor, but the properties closely monitor every metric possible, and since many of the major players have simultaneously operated properties across a broad spectrum of price points, I'm sure their gradual move upmarket was carefully considered as the most profitable choice. Of course, most profitable for the casino/resort is in near opposition to 'good value' to the people who visit those properties.

Other pressure has simply been the change in the way 'guests' prefer to spend their time in Vegas. Gambling revenues per person are way down, but those same guests have dramatically increased their spending on things like drinks and bottle service at clubs, private cabanas at pools, fine dining, shopping for luxury goods, going to shows, etc. So, the entire strip has chased those shifting preferences, installing high-end clubs anchored by renowned DJs in seemingly every major resort. "Downtown" Vegas (Fremont St. area) is definitely the more 'budget-friendly' part of Vegas, but most those properties have been rapidly moving up to appeal to more luxurious tastes as well. Slot machines have dropped in favor precipitously and have been replaced by more social table games that better fit with the 'party' atmosphere that Vegas is currently chasing.

If you were the type of person that wasn't particularly interested in gambling, the 'old' Vegas was easy to exploit -- properties wanted to attract gamblers with loss leaders like 99 cent shrimp cocktails, $19-dollar room rates, $5 all-you-can-eat buffets as an incentive to keep the chain-smoking hordes anchored at the slot machines for days at a time. Those deals are all but gone from Vegas, even for off-strip 'locals' properties. I kinda miss being able to get all-you-can-eat pancakes for $2 at midnight, but on the other hand, there's a lot more fantastic food and cool experiences on offer. As somebody that isn't particularly attached to a single way of doing things, it is fun to observe the way that Vegas continually reinvents itself over time.

The Las Vegas Monorail was originally built by MGM to shuttle tourists between a few of their properties on the strip (first simply as a point-to-point between MGM and Bally's). It was free to ride for guests of the MGM properties, but was mostly useless because it bypassed any non-MGM properties and didn't go anywhere else. MGM spun off the monorail as its own private company, which expanded service to a few other casinos and lengthened the track, but also started charging passengers to ride. It still didn't go many useful places like the airport, and also was inconvenient for tourists, as the casinos didn't want the track and stations out front of their properties "messing up the view," (as the 'curb appeal' draws in tourists walking the strip). This meant the stations were a fair walk out of the way, and between the fee to ride and still limited destinations, they weren't useful for much. The company operating the monorail went bankrupt a couple of times, and only recently was purchased at a by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor's Authority, who will likely focus on the monorail's service between the strip and the convention center.

So, in short, it sucks because it was never really conceived as much more than a gimmick, and it's entire development to this point was poorly-run private enterprise with a very limited vision. Thankfully, it hasn't been paid for by much in the way of public funds, but it also unfortunately served as a distraction preventing the development of an actual, good public transit system in Las Vegas.

Based on the ridership numbers of the Boring Company's tunnel already installed, I don't expect this expansion to turn out much better than the monorail, but the LVCVA and Clark County seem to be all for it instead of superior alternatives, simply because Boring Company is footing the bill and it won't take public finds to build. Basically the same story of how the monorail came into existence.

Nice! Synthetic Pancreases to go along with engineers' synthetic emotions!

Hoover Dam is a concrete gravity arch dam - meaning it is held in place by both it's own weight (gravity), and it's strength/shape (concrete arch).

The convex side of an arch dam faces towards the reservoir, and the pressure against the convex side of the arch flattens it (a teeny bit) and forces the abutments deeper into the canyon walls, strengthening the design. This is probably what the tour guide was referring to.

That pressure into the canyon walls will steadily decrease as the level of impounded water drops, but due to Hoover's design of being a concrete GRAVITY arch dam, it will stay in place without issue. There are other reservoirs impounded by 'thin arch concrete' dams - which are not heavy enough to impound the water by their weight (gravity) alone, and these could theoretically experience more difficulties if water level drops low enough.

In practicality, most dams cannot release water from the bottom of the reservoir, so the water level can only drop so low before the dam stops releasing water entirely. Issues such as pressure required to keep the dam in place would have been considerations made by the engineers designing and constructing the dam, so in most cases it is highly improbable for dams of significance to encounter an issue where it's even possible for the water level to drop so low that it creates a structural problem.

Statistics are problematic when in the hands of people who don't take the time to understand them.

I don't know where you got your data, because sources that I find online list Nevada in the ~125 gal/day range...

But either way, its moot. You're looking at total water use in the state - including things like irrigation of farmland, divided by the number of residents. Nevada is 67% the land area of California, but only has 8% of the population -- making such a comparison really tricky to use, since you end up comparing apples to to wrist watches.

Furthermore, Nevada is only allotted 4% (Yes 4%!!!) of the water that goes through the Colorado River, and doesn't even use it's total allocation and sells the excess to California.

Yeah, this is what every uninformed commentator and casual observer thinks, but really could not be any further from the truth.

The Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922, and it is what has determined water allocations ever since. In the Lower Colorado Basin (of which Lake Mead is part) allocations within the US are as follows:

California 58.70% 4.40 million acreft/year (172 m/s)
Arizona 37.30% 2.80 million acreft/year (109 m/s)
Nevada 4.00% 0.30 million acreft/year (12 m/s)

The Upper basin has it's own allocations, and Mexico has guaranteed minimums as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So your 'golf courses in the desert' comment regarding to Las Vegas water usage only refers to 4% of the usage at most. Beyond that, Las Vegas is actually one of the most efficient cities for water usage in the country, which results in Nevada not using their entire allocation, and selling the excess to California. Las Vegas has been very forward-thinking, offering cash to homeowners that convert their lawns to desert landscape - which in total consumed FAR more water than your golf courses. Finally, many of the golf courses in the valley are both strategically located in washes (reduced damage during flash floods, while also 'naturally' watering with drainage water), and then are also supplied with recycled water for additional irrigation.
https://www.lvvwd.com/water-sy...

The VAST majority of water usage in any of the states does not go to cities, but to agriculture. The problem is much less about a few thousand acres of golf courses, and much more about millions of acres of farm, pasture and crops that are in places that really don't make sense. But until the CRC is amended, this problem is likely to persist, as the farmers are all guaranteed their allotments.

The real problem is that the Colorado River Compact was set after observing water flows over a few seasons, which, unknown at the time, were El Nino years, and had higher than average flows of water. Ever since then, the amount of water flow guaranteed to the states (and perhaps Mexico) has been unrealistic and has been bound to run into problems, which have been exacerbated by long periods of drought in the last few decades.

Porsche doesn't even put the 911 GT2 RS on their website, so it's hard to get direct, current information, but the 2019 model had a *starting* price of $294,450, so this particular car is quite a bit closer to $400,000 than $40,000 in cost, though the technology being implemented at all is hopefully a sign that things are heading in the right direction.

My first thought was that because the city owns the entire network, much of the reason for the low cost is self-explanatory. But then I imagined if a similar arrangement were formed in the US, I would be extremely surprised if the same prices were attained. Local governments would likely see this as a source of income and either charge a similar rate to competitors, or possibly undercut their neighbors by a narrow margin in order to appear generous and possibly gain a few extra votes for the incumbents. Does anybody know more particulars of this arrangement and local laws in the area? Is the portion of the Stockholm government that runs this program have any sort of "no-profit" legislation?

As in the capsule containing my sweet, sweet vice and companion throughout life: Excedrin.