@user1271772 Yes - Area51 is a weird beast that doesn't cope with some of the configuration I have across SE :-)

Let's make this a better question: drones.stackexchange.com/questions/581/…

It's not irrelevant to us to discuss why some FC use one chip vs. another.

But it's crazy precise to be talking about two specific part numbers, instead of Cortex-M0, M3, M4, and M7.

I feel with a few changes, this would be a good canonical question.

Thoughts on how to go about doing this?

Well, there's nothing wrong with asking about two part numbers

but not for a canonical question

@FlashCactus I think there is in our scope. If you want to know about two part numbers, go to STM and open up their configuration tool.

@KennSebesta I don't like your title change for the racing course question, by the way

"drone racing" is a very canonical and widely used phrase

@FlashCactus Okay, but then what do you propose for making sure that drones are not just "quadcopters"?

and if talking about multirotors, hardly anyone races anything besides quads

It might be widely used, but in the expertise field we should allow ourselves to be more precise than common vernacular.

they do race wings, though

Not at the expense of making the question harder to find in search, though

You think on the "Drones and..." forum it will be hard to search for "drone racing"?

I don't know that I agree.

We can always add a tag?

It doesn't make it more searchable if I type "drone racing track" in the search bar

I mean, I get where you're coming from. I've been in the drone racing lab at MIT, and it's a colleague who runs it. We call it "drone racing" for sure.

But internally, we don't call them drones.

Still, no one does "multicopter racing"

What is a drone according to expert is so different from what is a drone according to the public.

people build and fly multicopters, but they don't "multicopter race"

And I feel that we're supposed to be the experts, so let's make our info easy to find but still appropriate.

We shouldn't be too pedantic, though.

@FlashCactus No disagreement. Feel free to edit so that it captures the essence of both sides of the discussion.

The main place for pedantry should be the tags, I think

@FlashCactus No, but calling it a quadcopter is hardly pedantic.

i.e. I'd gladly vote for tagging the question "multicopter" instead of "quadcopter" or "drone"

IMO, our titles should not feature "drone" unless it is a drone as defined by the world's regulators.

That's the only official definition of "drone" and it's likely to be the one that is more widely understood than "drone racing".

Not really.

Like I said, edit away. Just please capture the essence of what I'm after. We know that American football isn't played with the foot, and there's no harm in the misname.

In fact, when the site's out of beta, there's no way we could enforce that

people will call drones whatever they like to call drones

@FlashCactus Time will tell. I feel that "drone delivery" is going to be far more important than "drone racing". And it won't be done with multirotors once it's moved out of the lab.

and unless the majority of the site's user base disagrees, no mod or group of mods could enforce a different vision

@FlashCactus Agreed. It's our job to curate so that the community is nudged in the right direction.

I don't think we have an easy task to make sure the SE.Drones stays broad enough to attract people beyond hobbyists.

It's very easy to silo ourselves.

We need consensus which respects the points of view we'd like to keep.

If we don't particularly think this is the place for drone professionals, then we should just make that clear.

@FlashCactus let's not get in an edit war. I'd appreciate if your edit respected the viewpoint I've given.

Well, let's face it, even if we do a stellar job of attracting all the drone professionals, they'll still be drowned by the hobbyists. And that's not a bad thing; various minority communities tend to exist just fine within bigger SE sites.

@FlashCactus That's true and fair, but does that mean we need to be disrespectful?

This particular questions is explicitly aimed at the hobbyist part of the site's patrons, and would be primarily of interest to them.

I have to feel there's a way to do it right which isn't "suck it up, there's more of us than you".

So I don't see how it would offend the "professional" part of the community

@FlashCactus Sure! I'm strongly asking that you edit the title so that it reflects both standpoints.

Or let me do it so we don't wind up in an edit war.

Uh, could you write here how you see that title looking?

@FlashCactus Offense comes from not listening. And, yes, the professional community is somewhat offended by the use of the word "Drone" to begin with.

We really didn't like it when Bezos said "drone" on 60 Minutes.

But we shrugged and continued, because once he did it it was locked in.

Yup.

For me, a drone is anything flying autonomous. I think the site title captures that.

according to that definition, those things that people race are indeed drones.

@FlashCactus Agreed. But the answers are specific to one type of drone.

i.e. it doesn't have to be autonomous to qualify, just to potentially have that capability.

So I feel the question should capture that.

Not really.

Multirotors are very autonomous.

As I said earlier, people do also race wings.

They might not be autonomous all the way into SE(3), but they fall like rocks without extreme autonomy.

and the question applies to them too.

As opposed to fixed-wings and helis which are (usually) dynamically stable.

What do you think about "How does one navigate a drone racing course?" --> "In drone racing with multirotors, how does one fly the course?"

s/fly/navigate/, and then yes.

Kk.

Thanks for listening. I know I made it harder than it should have been, I'm glad we found a solution.

Geex, all the fun activity here happens at night for me! Pacific time doesn't compare!

*Geez... damn, can't type.

There's a small edit window in chat, even for people that aren't moderators (mods get unlimited edit-in-chat powers ;) )

Huh. I don't see that option. Am I blind?

Are you on mobile or a PC?

Important first question ;)

Anyhow, if you're on PC: There's a little arrow, like on the top screenshot here. Write a very new message of your own, and click that down arrow. If I'm correct, there shouldn't just be 'flag for moderator' at the bottom, but also 'edit'.

You only have 2? minutes though.

tested

Yay! :D

Huh. Yeah, never noticed that!

lol 😀

It doesn't work on some of my messages though...

Most of them only have the "flag for moderator" hyperlink

Yeah, there's only a small window, you can only do it on messages that aren't 2 minutes old. The rest will have only the flag link.

(I think it's two... it's been so long since I had to think about that limit)

Huh

I guess it's to avoid people editing messages from yesterday (that aren't likely to be still on screen/seen unless by people catching up with transcript) to be offensive.

@RoryAlsop Are you able to confirm though, that you still got the invitation to join Beta in your email inbox?

so... close... to 1k...

@ifconfig, regarding the editing function in chat: You can also just press the up arrow key on that keyboard of yours after posting a message, and it'll automatically switch to editing it.

@Tinkeringbell I don't really believe the 'offensive' part of that, It's probably more to avoid "I didn't ever say anything like that" moments in arguments and otherwise remove the ability to edit stuff after other people had replied to it.

Oh, that's probably a good one too! Though if I may save some face, 'I didn't say anything like that's + editing is kinda offensive too :P

Huh. Thanks, @FlashCactus. Nice name, BTW. :)

heh, you're welcome! Yours is nice too :)