Maybe you just suck at it. Coding with AI assistance is a learned skill, and if you don't know how to do it you may very well get bad results.

It's possible, but the problem is the AI writes buggy code, and invents APIs which don't exist. Tose are fairly widely reported problems.

These days, though, the training part is outsourced to the education system. And that's just dumb in so many ways.

Never mind apprentices, even just normal on-the-job training. Personally, I've always been a fan, and if I can do it in a tiny startup, then bigger companies certainly can.

You can get a huge amount of good code out of LLM 's if you know what you're doing. An experienced programmer can just fly.

This does not appear to be holding up in practice, at least not reliably.

https://developers.slashdot.or...

Clearly the value being generated is very large. Not just my perception but in the opinion of the most wealthy investors.

You may have thought tulip bulb growing was generating very large value too...

The machines are already able to do most coding and in some cases all of it.

Again, not my experience. I'm inveterately lazy, and have tried it repeatedly. It's... OK I guess. Definitely faster for some stuff, seems more to actually slow me down on others. Trouble is you never know which in advance.

As they are trained, general purpose LLMs are really just search engines with some aggregation and adaption capabilities.

I think you undersell the aggregation/adaptation part: plain search engines don't simply make shit up. They're more like search engines with a massive, ad-hoc compression scheme on the data which feeds the results through a huge aggregation system.

Then your hands are just as dirty.

Problem is people won't stop trying to kill you, take your stuff and destroy your culture and way of life just because you don't happen to like it. Do you also criticise Ukrainians developing new munitions to repel Putin's troops?

If not where do you draw the line?

You would need to add at least a couple of 0s for it to even begin to seem reasonable.

Well, shit. My phone are my reply which was quite long. So sorry my second go will be worse.

The EMF requirement is yours not mine. I don't see why an emf of 0 is a problem. Just a special case of complex impedances. But given your requirement capacitors fit.
.
I've also never heard the term "series loop" before, and that only holds for a pair. What would you call it work 3, 4,5 or more capacitors connected how I specified as parallel?

When you say"no it only behaves that way", that's what I was talking about. A paralleled set of capacitors can be plugged in and behaves as one capacitor too am external circuit. Circulating currents or not ate part of that. A parallel R And C behave as a single complex Z externally, and certainly have circulating currents even in the ideal case.

As for describing it with a single capacitor, this is where pedantry falls because it goes all the way down.You can't describe a single real capacitor as an an ideal point lumped element. So one night as well say "good luck describing any real capacitor as a single capacitor". To preclude one and not the other you have to pick a very specific level of approximation to make your definition of parallel.

Though this of course is where the OPs answer comes from. A pair of ideal capacitors connected in parallel is a single capacitor. The ideal model doesn't work for only having the left half of a capacitor charged in isolation. Or alternatively implies infinite currents. But since it's not ideal...

Imagine you have R, C on series with a battery. R charges C too 10V and then C2 is connected in parallel with C. You are I presume on with that. Now let R get very large. At some point, say 10^12 ohms, it becomes indistinguishable from a cut wire. So at what point does it become not parallel?

On to the switches. I have a DC powered device with some input filtering, namely a couple of capacitors in a series loop with the pair of those forming a series loop with the rest of the circuit. Is that how I should describe it when off? I can assure you any EE would look at me like I had sprouted an extra head of I said that when the circuit was off, and parallel when on. It's the same circuit diagram after all!

While this reports that 35% of people are satisfied with K-12 education, remember that the front cover of Time Magazine in ~2004 highlighted that ~30% of high school graduates couldn't read or write.

They could - however - reproduce. They have kids now.

It's more likely that 35% of people responding to the poll didn't understand the questions, and that 95% of people are dissatisfied with K-12 education.

Step #1: Pay teachers so little that you have to subsidize corporate housing to attract them to your school.
Step #2: Incentivize teachers to use personal funds to equip their students.
Step #3: Remove parental accountability from student behavior.
Step #4: Drive away teachers with a passion for teaching with administrative challenges and not supporting them in student/parent issues.
Step#5: Be left with those willing to stick it out until retirement OR those who can't get a real job OR those insanely crazy few who's passion keeps them there.
Step#6: Standardize Testing, Teach the Test, Ignore Critical Thinking skills.
Step #7: Accept resulting failure in results, give up, and start teaching critical race theory and transgender acceptance in math classes.
Step #8: ????
Step #9: Profit.

It would be an ok point, but the trouble is just about everything you can say about Harris is about a thousand tribes worse with trump. He's the king of word salads.

There is a real, for-true Lord Sugar in England. He's got the Donald Trump role in their version of The Apprentice.

Oh fair enough.

We needed to stop it in America in 2024 by electing Kamala Harris but we didn't.

Yeah but she had a stupid laugh. I mean she wasn't found by a court of law to be a rapist or racist. And she wasn't using the system to massively enrich herself. And she wasn't both ancient and going senile. And she wasn't going to appoint such incompetent people that Hillary's emailed paled in comparison.

But her laugh. Also Benghazi for some reason. And maybe pizza or whatever.

-1 Troll, here I come!

It cares about it's citizens. Except the ones who criticise Xi. Or the ones living somewhere where it's convent to pollute. Or the ones who have the wrong religion. Or the ones it's using for slave labour. Or the ones it's actually committing genocide against.

Sure, "most" might be happy with that but most Brits were pretty happy with going around the world, invading places and stealing their shit.

"Things hooked in parallel (Figure 1.1) have the same voltage across them."

Ah you mean the entire premise of the OP's question?

So no the source of the EMF is not shown but it is clearly there as the text underneath states. Thank you for proving my point.

At this point I have to wonder if you know how capacitors work. If those two floating wires are unconnected to an EMF, the two capacitors will still have the same voltage across them, due to whatever charge/energy is stored in them.

You don't need an external EMF to have a voltage across them.

And in fact it'll be behaving like one capacitor with the sum of capacitance in that regard.

In fact it's really easy to imagine using switches to convert a parallel circuit to a series circuit.

No shit, sherlock. But I'm not talking about switched capacitor filters or supplies or Marx generators or anything like that, but something much, much simpler.

You have a battery. Connect it to a resistor, then that to a capacitor then back to the battery. R1 and C1 are in series. A basic RC circuit. Now connect another capacitor in parallel with C1. You now have a pair of parallel capacitors, in a way we both (I assume, who knows) understand.

Now replace the resistor with a switch. Are those capacitors still in parallel?