HN user
China doesn't invade countries; except Tibet, Vietnam, India and Korea. They also funded and trained the Khmer Rouge and clashed with the soviet union. They have also built and fortified islands in other nations territorial waters. That is from the top of my head.
Just my impression from my reading. Now I think of it I can recall three female characters from the first book. The only one who I would consider consequential was a scientist who survived the cultural revolution and lead a campaign to destroy humanity because of her horrible experiences then (didn't think she had a believable motivation). Her mother who basically sold out her father and her family to stay on the good side of the cultural revolution. The last one was a love interest of the main character who was defined by her physical characteristics (they actually found a woman who matched his perfect dream partner). I can't recall any new female characters from the 2nd book, and I am only reading the third book now. All the other scientists, politicians, police officers, conspirators etc... that I can recall were male. I didn't have a problem with this. It just reminded me of something like the lensmen series. It probably reflects a society where it is common for women to be home makers and the men to pursue careers.
Edit: In reply to Aeolun (couldn't see a reply button below your post):
Not bad. The series reminded me of 1940's-50's sci-fi from the US, for a couple of reasons: A large confidence in the industrial and scientific capacity of their country. Relatively uncritical acceptance that their country is the good guys. No consequential female characters.
As an analyst who works a lot with housing data. The dynamic in Melbourne is very similar to what is seen here in Toronto. I particularly agree with the comments regarding the economic leverage and wealth effect built into home ownership. It has been the classic way of building wealth in Australia for all income groups. And it is indeed powerful. The effect for home asset class is particularly high to by the Basil II (and probably Basil I) banking regulations which allow banks to lend out much higher ratio of loans to capital where the security is housing. I believe this is the primary reason why home loans charge a lower interest rate than say a loan to buy stocks or a business loan. It is indeed a powerful 'gift' to be lent money at a subsidized rate. And this has been given to all home buyers. I also feel that eventually this positive feedback loop will stop or go into reverse. My guess is a new equilibrium point of housing value will occur at about the point where the long term interest rate + turnover costs = rental yield + long term rent inflation. At that point borrowing money to invest in housing should not in the long run make or lose you any money. Unlike housing prices, rents are tied to what people can afford. Over the past 10 years in Victoria rents in metro Melbourne have increased by 3.3% p.a. This is actually lower than regional Victoria (3.6%). This is higher than inflation but quite close to income growth. Note: Metro Melbourne makes up 80% of the states 6.4 million population and the higher rates in country areas probably represents bleed over from the Melbourne into satellite commuter towns. Gross rental yield (rent/property value) is 2.5% for houses, 3.5% for flats/apartments (probably what you call condos). But this is probably on the high side. Maintenance costs are probably at least 1% for houses, and probably higher for flats due to their higher depreciation and construction costs. Call it 1.5% for houses and 2% for flats. Houses have a premium due to their ability to be developed more easily into higher density housing. Cost for selling a house is about 8-10% of value. If you sold every 20 years that would be 0.4-0.5% p.a. Current interest rates in Australia for a home loan is about 4%. So the current equation for flats would look something like 4% + 0.5% < 2%+3.3%. The right side is higher than the left, so flats might be below the long term equilibrium price, but not by much and if you need to put a 20% deposit down, then the opportunity cost of not having that 20% invested in, say, shares might mean that it is already at equilibrium price. Interest rates could drop, but currently in Australia, the banks have shown little inclination to drop their rates even if the central bank has. Back to the original post. I don't count housing affordability as property prices. I would count it in rental prices. And for this I do think that building new homes does effect housing affordability for renters. From the data I have tight supply or surging incomes = increase in rental prices. While loose supply or low income growth = stagnant rents.
Not really surprised. Farmers are less than 1% of the population and most land is farm land.
In this case it makes sense to be cautious in the scientific conclusion, due to limitations on the methodology. The meta-analysis searched for articles containing the words "insect" and "decline", which could lead to a bias against papers showing stable or growing populations. Knowing how many papers are published it must be incredibly difficult to do a comprehensive studies. I think you can draw conclusions that some insect populations around the world are declining and that some factors (such as land use, monocultures etc...) are involved. Perhaps the headline might be more accurate if it said "there is no proof that the insect apocalypse in here but there are reasons to worry"