"Ordinary" antennas are completely passive, just a bit of metal. It's the maths for data recovery and trilateration (not triangulation!) that is processor heavy.
You can buy chips which only do the RF tasks. But you can also buy chips which do “everything”, the RF, the maths, some even do sensor fusion with data from accelerometers and wheel odometry sensors. All in one chip.
You can read here[1] more about what the RF frontend does. This is the crux of it: “Its two-stage receiver amplifies the incident 1575.42MHz GPS signal, downconverts it to a first IF of 37.38MHz, further amplifies it, and then downconverts to a second IF of 3.78MHz. An internal 2- or 3-bit ADC (selectable as a 1-bit sign with a 1- or 2-bit magnitude) samples the second IF and outputs a digitized signal to the baseband processor.”
Thanks for this! It's interesting that the article says doing it in software can be more power efficient than having a dedicated chip for the intermediate frequencies. Does that mean there exists "dumber" RF chips that do less, offloading the math to the main CPU for power savings? It seems like the kinda thing that would be commonplace if so...?
I guess my fundamental confusion is why "listening" to a broadcast signal takes so much power, vs say a FM receiver or passive wifi snooping.
What point do you think I am trying to make, exactly? Native fauna is defined as animals which historically have naturally occurred in the local area [1], and wild cats are by definition native fauna in Scotland, and across much of Europe.
You are letting your very obvious personal bias determine your interpretation of what is an objective fact.
It's a faulty comparison, though. Domestic cats are by definition not the same as any native cat. They are domesticated animals, more equivalent to dogs, cows, and chickens.
So the discussion to have here is 'do we accept having domesticated animals in environments they didn't originate from'.
It is in no way a faulty comparison. We did not domesticate cats in the same way that we did dogs, cows or chickens [1]. Wild cats found human populations useful because they attracted rodents. Humans found cats useful because dealt with rodents. A mutually beneficial relationship lasting thousands of years during which time, cats essentially domesticated themselves.
Domesticated animals are different species than native flora and fauna. The domestic cat is taxonomically and genetically not the same as a any wild cat. The same goes for dogs, cattle, etc.
By definition, domestic animals and plants have no native home except with humans. This is why we call domestic cats who escape and live in the wild "feral," not "wild," because a feral animal is specifically a domestic animal not living with humans, not a non-domestic native animal. It does not matter whether they 'domesticated themselves' or not, they are a domestic species and therefore not equatable with a wild one.
As a result, your point simply makes no sense. Domestic cats have no 'native lands' because they are not and cannot be 'native' anywhere except in human settlements.
> Can you point out the part of the article that disagrees with the assertion "cats are domestic animals"?
This is neither relevant nor the issue being discussed. It is a straw man, and you all too well know this. No one has at any point claimed that there are not domestic cats.
The entire point made was that cats are a native species in many parts of Europe, and that research shows not only that cats domesticated themselves, but that domestic and wild cats are genetically almost identical. The fact that domestic cats exist does not prevent native wild cats from also existing.
Did you actually read the article I linked to? I ask because actual evolutionary geneticists don't agree with you, and I'm likely to side with them on the genetics of the matter.
from the looks of it, you found an inkling of confirmation and rolled with it. you think you got a science backing for your ideas, but nah, wrong. remind yourself when you read all the articles claiming "near identical DNA!" that human DNA is ~1.6% different from gorilla DNA. geneticists are seeing larger differences between domestic and wild cat species.
This is pretty much the same attitude which leads to kids being wrapped in cotton wool, ferried everywhere in giant SUVs and never let outside to play. I find it a bit sad.
dude, it isn't a giant SUV divers that are advocating for indoor cats. they are the same people that hold onto the whimsy that "cats a natural and belong outdoors! :)"
> For those that want to follow, what are good online shopping alternatives?
In Blighty, Argos.
No counterfeit stuff (which frankly, should be a given), same day delivery and a good network of bricks'n'mortar shops (with pick-up and drop-off) if you need it.
Along similar lines.... When presenting at a conference, our research group would always pick a word that everybody had to sneak into their talk, or else buy everyone a pint.....
....though, I was once at a conference where for a split second, a bloke flashed a slide showing a chimpanzees arse. We recon he had a similar bet going.
> The RSPB themselves have said.....there’s no evidence this is affecting decline
The RSPB know which side their bread is buttered. They are a charity who get their donations from "animal lovers", inducing cat 'owners'. They certainly won't say anything which might prejudice this source of income.
> It's odd to me that there's such a contrast between attitudes towards cats roaming in Europe
Plenty of people here in Blighty despise roaming cats leaving turds in their gardens and killing the local wildlife.
> I have been ranting and raving that surveillance capitalism is the worst thing to happen in the modern world
Seconded.
Our defence is the GDPR. It makes gathering personal data a liability, not an asset.
It's amusing how many HN'ers (based in the US) will rant against the GDPR in an effort to defend their own scummy surveillance capitalism business models.
Surveillance capitalism is hardly just an American phenomenon, and though I don't defend it at all, or many other aspects of how things are in the U.S. corporate state, you're deluded if you think the EU is somehow greatly better. Many on HN go full holy roller on GDPR as if it were some sort of divine intervention while at the same time apparently blatantly ignoring how the EU's own laws are grossly intrusive in so many ways and without at least some of the minimal protections offered in the U.S. by its Bill of Rights. To name one good example, at least on this side of the pond free expression is more firmly defended, even if other things aren't so much.
You have just outed yourself as American!