legacyfruit

Just thinking out loud here, but if identical twins were much closer in, for example, appearance, couldn't this induce more similarity in other traits. That is, if being identical made twins have closer relationships, might that not result in higher correlations in certain traits, which weren't due to genetics.

Do people tend to know if they are identical or non-identical twins?

In the epilogue one of his books (maybe "the drowned and the saved"?), Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi describes giving a talk to a group of schoolchildren. One boy asked him to describe the layout of the camp, and then described how he would have escaped if he had been in Auschwitz. Nothing Primo Levi could say would convince the boy that escape was impossible.

Now I'm not saying that it was impossible for this citizen journalist to hide her identity, but the comments strike me as having a similar tone. People are simply assuming that her capture and death was preventable, because it is psychologically difficult to face the alternative. Namely, that only by accepting personal risk, was this woman able to stand up to the cartels. Even if the technology to protect her identity existed, maybe a person in this woman's situation would be very unlikely to know about it.

Of constructive suggestions are great, although I'm not qualified to judge their technical merit.

>He estimates that iPhone sales are adding one-quarter to one-third of a percentage point to the annualized growth rate of the gross domestic product.

That's amazing. This means that iPhones account for 0.25-0.33% of all consumption in the US.

(reasoning behind this: annualized growth rate is (gdp for year / gdp for previous year) - 1, so to account for 0.25 percentage points of growth means to be 0.25 percent of gdp)

Agreed. The primary reason economists argue for taxing capital gains, is that income can be disguised as capital gains. Startups are probably the best example of this.

Even this reason, however, is probably exaggerated. Suppose for example that the CEO owns 10% of a company's stock. While they have a greater incentive to work hard, there is also no reason to think the stock price will rise faster than any other stock (by the efficient market hypothesis). This apparent contradiction is resolved by that fact that the market already knows that the CEO is incentivized to work hard. So as long as the CEO isn't awarded shares before it is announced publicly, the capital income from these shares should be no different to any other share.

The same applies to startups, however in the case of the startup there is no market signal so it is easier to cheat accounting rules and claim that the value of the awarded shares are lower than they really are.