It will favour zealots in both directions, which should mostly even out assuming zealotry is roughly as common in both directions. Also, I don't know of any less zealot-based approach except forced participation - which seems worse.

Citizen conventions typically consists of randomly selected citizens. This one consists of 150 randomly selected citizens using a statistical procedure (sortition, a variant of stratified sampling) to make it represent the whole.

Russian radars can likely track stealth aircraft now, but the reduced RCS does reduce detection range, as the 4th root of RCS. As for the "types of wars the US is fighting" -- see the last sentence of my prior post. I suspect our next war will be different.

The issue with the A-10 is survivability, especially in "great power competition" (against Russia and/or China) in an environment where the SAM and fighter threats are extremely deadly.

The F-35 is inadequate as a replacement for a variety of reasons, but minor improvements in engines, armor etc. do not even begin to address the real issue. The military needs to plan for the next war, not the previous one.

Congress cannot abrogate the power of another branch of government, and you are overstating the importance and controversy of Marbury v. Madison .

The Supreme Cout's power of judicial review arises from Article III section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

A dispute over the interpretation or legality of a provision of law (regulation, statute, whatever) is a "Case in Law and Equity". The idea of judicial review was not novel to the founders.

In cases like this, the preliminary injunction essentially decides the lawsuit. This case is effectively over, unless SCOTUS accepts an appeal (unlikely).

The FAQ on the website says this:

It also links to the detailed terms and conditions, which I've not read.

From the FAQ:

Does Google own the intellectual property created during the competition?

No. Google is not requiring any IP or licenses be granted except a non-exclusive license to be used only for the purpose of testing the inverter and publicizing the prize. We want entrants to benefit themselves through the advancements they make in order to help grow an advanced power electronics ecosystem.

I absolutely agree. Given the choice to reply or moderate a misleading or erroneous post I'll moderate every time, for exactly this reason. I don't think it's because the reply is wrong, rather it isn't seen due to having a low initial score, and coming at a later time when it is more likely to get overlooked.

This would have to be done carefully, i.e. you can't post an edit after someone has clicked the reply button (not actually posted the reply). And the person replying would need to be notified if the post had been changed since the page was loaded.

Earlier in this discussion someone suggested to allow appending comments to your own post with a timestamp, but not editing the original text. That might be a better approach.

It could be that he's gotten his PhDs the old-school way: Doing his research in the field and then presenting to a committee, not guided research. (I don't care enough to look it up, I just want to make sure that people that read the thread know that this option exists.)

... but I'm not sure whether it counts. I was the last regular employee left when a company was being shut down, and part owner of that company.

Both would be prosecuted, with the additional charge of criminal conspiracy.