The thing about the British monopol on salt in India is that it's achieved by forbidden certain easy salt production like the one in which Ghandi engaged.
There's artificial scarcity in India and I don't think it makes sense to speak of comparative advantage when it comes to monopoly gains that are achieved by creating artificial starcity.
As far as I understand the Chinese situation the monopoly was a lot more natural in nature. In the Chinese situation it wasn't possible for someone who didn't like the governments control of the salt to walk a bit like Ghandi and pick up own salt from the ground.
I'm also not sure to what extend a goverment raising taxes from it's citizens (what the Chinese did) should be called "making a profit". Would you also call the US income tax "the US government making profits by exploiting comparitive advantage"? I see no reason to use that model over saying that the government raises taxes because of it using coercion.
Since the people living inland could not live without it, the salt monopolist could charge quite high prices - a “trade” arguably not so different from threatening inland farmers with death if they did not pay up.
Especially given that you speak of the British and India, it seems like you ignore the political factors that come with the salt. It's no historical accident that Ghandi picked his fight with the British over salt. If salt would all be about comparative advantage it doesn't explain why Ghandi was forbidden from picking up salt by British law.
Since the people living inland could not live without it, the salt monopolist could charge quite high prices - a “trade” arguably not so different from threatening inland farmers with death if they did not pay up.
Farmers have no problem storing unprocessed wheat for longer periods of time without salt. They are not threatened with death. On the individual level they just have to suffer tasteless food which means that they are willing to buy the salt even with salt taxes.
Beyond the individual they can't feed an army because an army that travels around can't carry wheat and process it to feed itself while it's moving. Control over the salt is control over the ability to feed a moving army and if the government has control over the flow of salt the inland farmers can't raise an army to challenge the power of the government.
For more on the role of salt Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky was insightful for me.
Another difference beween "company is valued at X at a round" and "company is worth X" is that the valuation is effected by other terms of the deal as well.
It seems to me that there are a lot of times where people vote in our societies. In many cases people don't spend much time thinking about voting systems and simply go for the default in their country.
To the extend that some states implement Instant Runoff Voting you create a situation where there's no default anymore and where there will be more discussions about what voting systems to use in other context as well. That socializes people towards having those discussions and towards it being normal to have different voting systems. Diversity of voting systems is valuable for the broader movement of voting reform.
I might be too much in the German way of nanimg things but tagwiki seem superior to twiki. Twiki is unclear to pronounce (do you say it as T wiki or TW iki?) and also not explainatory to someone who doesn't understand it.
Edit: StackExchange seems to use "tag wiki" https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214337/what-is-a-tag-wiki-how-do-i-write-a-good-one It seems that how things have to work in English.
It seems unclear to me that stock investments in big tech companies have a significant effect on those companies.
Both Alphabet and Microsoft have more then $100 billion cash at hand at the moment. They are not cash-constraint.
The study doesn't measure people being charmed in the sense that they are perceived to be charming by other humans.
If you get someone to interact in style X that's normally a signal for Y it stops being a good signal for Y. That's the basic Goodhard's law principle.
That's not how the OP proposes this information to be used. All three paragraphs at the end that start bolded are recommending other ways to use the information.
Just because there's no profit to seize doesn't mean that goods won't move from one person to the other if the person who wants to use the goods uses coercive force.
While I'm not certain to what extend it's true, from time to time I heard the claim that the British didn't get net profit from colonization. It's possible that they still did it because they believed it would be good for them even when it wasn't profitable.