8
\$\begingroup\$

Sinking 80 mA with a microcontroller without any driver circuit? is a general question on parallel current sourcing capabilities, but it was single handedly closed and migrated to Arduino.Se. It has nothing to do with Arduinos specifically, and mentioned other platforms in the same sentence, like the Raspberry Pi, yet was migrated to Arduino.

It was rejected for that reason, and still remains closed here, as this question does not appear to be about electronics design within the scope defined in the help center. when it's clearly about electronics design.

Why?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A note to be careful: The question was quite edited after the migration. In its original form it was mostly talking about "maker" platforms and modules etc. \$\endgroup\$ – PlasmaHH Feb 19 '16 at 15:59
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @PlasmaHH: But the gist of the question hasn't changed from the original. I've reopened it. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Feb 19 '16 at 16:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DaveTweed: I have the feeling that from certain persons pov this would be debatable, thus I thought I better mention it... \$\endgroup\$ – PlasmaHH Feb 19 '16 at 16:13
24
\$\begingroup\$

That was a dumb migration that should be reversed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It almost certainly should have been closed as a duplicate though. Not that I want to go find the duplicate... \$\endgroup\$ – The Photon Feb 25 '16 at 17:33
8
\$\begingroup\$

I suggest that migrations or other actions taken out of a feeling of irritation toward a "lazy OP" who can't read the data sheet should be curtailed. This is a Q&A site. People come here because they don't know things. The whole point of the Arduino and Pi platforms in particular is that people can get involved with microcontrollers without having much of an electronics background. One can use a Arduino, for example, without even knowing what microcontroller is on the board, let alone reading the data sheet for it. So if you were never a beginner, and never asked someone a question that you could have answered yourself with a little research, then by all means, pile on. Otherwise how about some patience?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ How about some diligence and preliminary research? When I was a beginner, I was taught to read datasheets and to do other kinds of preliminary research. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 21 '16 at 17:54
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It's reasonable to ask someone "did you read the data sheet?" or "what did Google tell you?" I think we can encourage people to do some initial investigation without having to make them wrong for raising the question. It's the "hey, stupid, you don't belong here" attitude that turns me off. \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 21 '16 at 19:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm curious Willis, how many times are you going to respond with "did you read the data sheet?" or "what did Google tell you?" before you get sick and tired of helping out "lazy OP's" which refuse to think for themselves and instead wish to place that burden on others? To be clear, I don't think it should have been migrated either, but when do we draw the line? \$\endgroup\$ – rdtsc Feb 21 '16 at 20:01
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Exactly 4,279 times. And after that I will just stop responding and let the next generation take over. \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 21 '16 at 20:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suspect you'll tire of being abused long before that. Also, some stupids don't in fact belong here. It's OK to be ignorant. There is no excuse for being stupid. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Feb 21 '16 at 21:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ With respect to diligence and preliminary research, those are fine reasons for a community close of a question, not so fine for a moderator close, and questionable for a migration. \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Feb 21 '16 at 21:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop I guess I just don't think of someone posting an uninformed question on a Q&A site as abuse directed at me. Would something awful happen if you just ignored the questions you didn't like? \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 22 '16 at 3:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Willis Would something unfortunate happen if we allow lazy people go unchecked? Yes - the community would degenerate. I can try to explain in my own words, but there is little use to repeat what has been already written. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 22 '16 at 3:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ On large communities decaying over time, being nice or mean, and Stack Overflow. I'm deeply impressed by the references, which it's using : Why Online Communities Decay Over Time and A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. The latter is long, but it's well worth reading. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 22 '16 at 3:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that we do people's work for them, only that we not treat them with hostility. \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 22 '16 at 4:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Willis You said "if you just ignored the questions you didn't like". You didn't say anything about hostility. Cut the crap. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 22 '16 at 4:35
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I was commenting to @OlinLathrop, who seems to be angered by these sorts of questions and likely to react in a hostile manner. He should ignore those questions instead and leave them to people who are capable of more measured responses. Might consider taking the same advice yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 22 '16 at 4:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Willis "[...] Might consider taking the same advice yourself." I have replied to that already. Care to read? \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 22 '16 at 4:51
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ "Would something awful happen if you just ignored the questions you didn't like?" Obviously. Actually think about it. Lots of drivel makes a crappy site. People come here for good answers to electronics problems. That means you need experts around to provide answers. These experts have plenty of other things they can be doing with their free time, but don't tolerate crap wasting that time. You can't have what you want without this being a site they want. The morons, drivellers, and help vampires need to be dispatched "with extreme predjudice" to minimize damage to the site. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Feb 22 '16 at 12:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Of course one can use those things without reading the docs, but if one then goes on to ask a question that could have been answered by a cursory inspection of the docs, one is behaving as an inconsiderate asshole who doesn't value others' time, and one should be made aware of this, lest one continue to behave that way. \$\endgroup\$ – hobbs Feb 25 '16 at 5:47
-6
\$\begingroup\$

That's clearly a "Read the datasheet (duh!)." question. What is being asked is directly answered in the datasheet. It doesn't belong here. Going to go vote to close that sorry excuse of a question now.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Where exactly is paralleling outputs in the data sheet? \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Feb 19 '16 at 18:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Passe: He looked at the per-pin current spec, but ignored the total I/O current or maximum ground current spec. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Feb 19 '16 at 18:42
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ But does that answer if a group of pins can drive a single load reliably, instead of multiple independent loads? \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Feb 19 '16 at 18:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Passe: Yes, it tells you the maximum current any group of pins can sink, which is what the question is asking. Since there is such a spec, obviously you can have multiple pins sinking current at the same time. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Feb 19 '16 at 18:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Then why isn't paralleled gpio used more often instead of recommending a transistor/mosfet/relay? \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Feb 19 '16 at 18:47
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This is the type of question you should love, because they are asking to debunk a common preconception of the arduino users you hate. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Feb 19 '16 at 18:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sometimes we get questions along the lines of "I've searched the datasheet but couldn't find this parameter. [Case in point.]" or "I'm having a hard time interpreting the datasheet. [Case in point.]" Such questions are treated amicably. But what we're dealing with here isn't one of those cases. My point is that the O.P. didn't read the datasheet at all. He must have expected us to read it for him. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 19 '16 at 22:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NickAlexeev Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" There is nothing to indicate an expectation for others to datamine datasheets. Quite a few bad designs can be attributed to not "seeing" a part of a datasheet no matter how many times it is read \$\endgroup\$ – JonRB Feb 20 '16 at 12:06
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Olin's comment represents one point of view of the site, that it is mostly a group of experts like himself assisting less-experienced designers, and that the less-experienced people should respect the limited time and attention of the experts and only ask questions if they're absolutely necessary. But another point of view is that the site enables less-experienced people to learn by helping other less-experienced people. People who aren't very experienced welcome the opportunity to answer questions from other beginners. Don't like a question? My feeling is, just move on. \$\endgroup\$ – Willis Blackburn Feb 21 '16 at 19:56
-13
\$\begingroup\$

The question was about Arduino, and the O.P. didn't check the datasheet. That's why.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ It was? Then why did they mention Raspberry Pi? And the data sheet has specifics on parallel current sourcing/sinking? Really? Care to show us? \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Feb 19 '16 at 16:45
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @passe Please bore the lazy O.P. with all those questions. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Feb 19 '16 at 17:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .