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!

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.

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?

In the UK, which (I think that's like consumer reports in the US) has basic high performing models for £30, so 40 bucks?

With that said, it'll get near daily use and probably last a decade. Even at $200, that's 2c per slice toasted. Though apparently often the expensive toasters aren't that good.

You can do that with any modern phone but people don't do it....

Kiiiinda I guess, but somehow everything is shit.

Yep. It basically just does the job. Straightforward, no strange takes on interaction, plays well with non XFCE things, low resource, decently configurable, unopinionated and works decently out of the box.

The literal definition of a parallel circuit is one where the circuit divides and the current is split between two components - look it up.

You know I actually reached behind me and grabbed Horowitz & Hill off the shelf just because.

Looks like someone has h4x0rized it so you can look too:

https://kolegite.com/EE_librar...

Page 2, Figure 1.1, "parallel connection". See the lack of an EMF in that diagram?

When the OP said "capacitors in parallel", that's exactly what he means. Those wires on the left and right? They're not connected to anything. They can be sure, by implication, but need not be. They're just floating there in diagrammatic or real space.

If there is not more than one path for the current the circuit is not parallel.

OKey dokey, since you keep dodging this question I'll ask again. I'm beginning to suspect you're dodging because you don't have a good answer that also is consistent with your definition.

So take two capacitors connected in parallel, yeah with one end connected to + on your battery the other end connected to -. Cut the wire to +. Are they no longer in parallel? What if you remove the wire completely? Now replace the cut wire with a switch. Turn it on. Turn it off. Do they change from parallel to undefined as you flip the switch?

This is not a physics vs. engineering definition, it is THE definition of what parallel means.

So you say, but that sounds like a definition with holes in. Somehow I've got this far in life without ever having a super precise, pedantic definition that fails when you flip a switch.

WTF is wrong with UI designers these days? I have my fair share of 'get off my lawn' moments, but I really don't think my hatred for new UI paradigms falls into that category. Designers today seem to have no familiarity with the 'form follows function' concept.

My guess would be that it's kind of reached if not an optimum, a deep local minimum. A huge amount of the awkwardness of early GUIs has been thoroughly hammered out, and the WIMP idea has generally settled into a number of core interaction mechanisms, but with a lot of similarities. The problem is that most of the big variations have been done, and we've kept the ones that worked.

But the only way for a designer to do something to make their mark or stand out is to do a big variation. Trouble is there's not a lot of options left for big changes that improve things.

Also, see Zawinski's CADT: people in their zeal for newness forget all the very hard won lessons of the past. Like GNOME bringing back bits of MDI. MDI was an interesting, but ultimately (IMO) failed experiment. One might argue tabbed interfaces are a remenant of MDI, but in firefox, I can make multiple toplevel windows and move tabs between them, which is somewhat outside of the scope of MDI. I suspect the GNOME people never lived in the Win 3.11 era where MDI was somewhat popular, so never got past the stage of "hey this is cool grouped things move together" to see how that can fundamentally defeat the point of windowing in the first place.

As far as I know most any adult mammal loses their taste for any kind of milk or dairy upon becoming an adult. It's an anomaly among European humans to tolerate lactose into adulthood, an artifact of living in a cold European climate where long winters left adults without a source of vital vitamin D but the milk extracted from cattle.

Kiiinda but more likely it was also a good source of calories. Cows can eat stored, human inedible food such as hay and make useful calories (for humans) out of it. Plus cheese can be stored for long periods of time without spoiling.

Eating eggs is also an artifact of domesticating animals for food. Do lions eat eggs? I know raccoons do, but they are vile creature

Your personal hangups are completely irrelevant here. Many many animals eat eggs.

I cry when I see raccoon roadkill as I didn't have the chance to run them over.

You sound like a psychopath,

I remember hearing something about how many potatoes the typical Irish farmer ate in a day before the potato famine put an end to that. It was something like 40 potatoes.

Kind of depends on the size of the potatoes. Maybe the baby new potatoes at the beginning of the harvest but not the 200g ones at the end.

Didn't Joe Rogan cover this theory at some point?

Joe Rogan doesn't "cover" things. He invites people with dubious opinions on to his show then "just asks questions", to give plausible deniability. His show is not a source of useful information.

Funny I haven't heard the howls of rage about "cancel culture", free speech and whatnot from all the usual idiots. It's almost as if it was never about free speech, just about whether right wingers get the megaphone.

Perhaps the obvious answer is to make the internet for adults only.

How's that obvious though? Everything requires access to the internet now. So either you have age verification which is a massive invasion of privacy or you need parents to supervise 17.9999 year olds basically all they time on the internet which they need for even school work. For any family where both parents work (i.e. almost all of them now), it's functionally impossible to supervise kids all the time when they are at home (never mind that this is bad for the kids to be monitored 24/7). And what can you do if they are ever out of your sight?

Companies are abusing contract law, abusing arbitration and producing dubious products and trying to push the blame and work on to everyone else.

Every so often I install a new machine, and I give GNOME the old college try for a while to prove I'm not an old fart who can't adapt until I finally get so sick of it that I install XFCE or FVWM. I think the straw that broke my back last time was one of the strangest things I've seen.

So, GNOME appears to track which programs own which windows, but then uses that for evil^Winteraction. I was using a program (can't remember which) and it popped up an info dialog. Naturally the dialog also covered something I wanted to see, so I did the obvious thing and moved it. But that caused the dialog and the underlying window to both move together rigidly. The result is it acts like a weird hybrid of those old Windows 3.11 era MDI programs (thank god those die a death) and normal window management but somehow combining the worst aspects of both.

This is also at odds with literally every other windowing system I thin I've ever used. Now I'm not saying bold, new paradigms (ha!) have no place in F/OSS, but this was just odd. It kind of goes against the notion of windowing systems where there are multiple independent windows.

But wait, there's more! I decided instead to try resizing it. So I clicked on the lower left corner as is the usual thing dragged it and to my surprise, it resized from the middle! I tried playing with this a bit and naturally it's cursed because you now have 2 moving things per dimension and both have constraints (i.e. not going outside the screen), so it sometimes starts bouncing around all over the place, or if the dialog is too close to the top of the screen, you can't resize it downwards because that also resizes it upwards. This is, as far as I'm concerned complete whack.

Sometimes breaking from tradition is good, because there are better ways. Often it's either just change for the sake of it or completely bananas. In this case they decided to make it harder to move a window to see what's behind it, which is kind of the reason for the existence of windowing systems.

Unfortunately they seem to be really trying to get X to go away in favour of Wayland. Unfortunately rather than getting Wayland fully working over the last 16 years to replace the "broken" X11, they've got it to, say, 90% feature complete and are just hoping for the best. Too much shit still just doesn't work properly

Oh and before anyone bleats the usual excuse of BuT wAyLaNd Is JuSt A pRoToCoL, so is X11. It's also just a protocol. Plus, being just a protocol doesn't excuse the protocol from missing very important features in its design on some sort of quixotic point of principle so that people endless churn their "legacy" (i.e. working, debugged, scalable but not using the latest fashion in UI) apps.