Not true. That's why we have federal minimum wage laws. If the wait staff are actually employed and not acting as independent contractors, then they are paid the minimum wage for their state. (Although I will grant that this being a living wage is definitely arguable.)

Edit: Correction - although not California (my state), apparently some states do allow minimum wages in the $2-3 range if employees receive tips [1]. For the downvoters, I only count about 5 states that do this, however. The original statement does not accurately reflect the majority of the U.S.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

Yes, theoretically the higher your bill the better time you are having. (Think celebratory events as opposed to a lunch break.)

Is it a tax?

No, it's gratuity. You're showing your appreciation for the staff enabling you to have the best experience possible at that time (in theory).

If tipping is to support staff wages does that mean waiters who serve fancier higher priced food items are entitled to larger wages solely for the fact that their table happened to order a costlier meal?

Serving higher priced food usually means higher caliber of customers, in the tipping sense. For example, patrons of Denny's restaurants might tip well if the coffee refills are on time, but in a finer dining establishment, for example, service requests for something off the menu (like a newspaper) would not be out of the ordinary.

That reminds me of the passage in the Bible claiming four angels standing at corners of the earth. Not to get into a theistic thread or anything, but who needs religion when science is that stunning? Beautiful imagery!

Most mainstream users are not tech savvy. Imagine a traveling person arrives in a city and spontaneously decides to see a movie. They enter the search 'good movie playing in nowheresville'. As it stands now their query will likely be matched by the keywords 'movie', 'playing', and 'nowheresville'. The returned results might include a news article about local theatres, with no actual focus on reviews. The searcher might get frustrated and just decide to rent a movie instead. However, with schemas in wide use search engines will know exactly what web sites are talking about movies and whether it's in the context of reviews. The searcher can then be passed on to the relevant site.

In other words, do you think it's better to tell search engines this is sort of what I have or this is exactly what I have?

This is actually why I think comment scores should remain off indefinitely. People (including myself) have become too reliant on scoring as a measurement for the merit of comments. That may have worked when the site first started and had a small close-knit group of users. However, any site which experiences growth as HN has will inevitably become diluted for both quality of comments, and scoring, I believe. Yet, people will not adjust for that as they continue using scoring to inform them what is "best".

The reason is because HN was (is) becoming more affected by the same cycle we've seen play out where content from a small set of users which reflect core site values makes the site good, but this draws more attention and users until content quality begins to suffer; quality posters leave, and find some new site which starts the cycle again.

I think leaving off the comment scores is the only way to check that unwanted behavior. We have to deal with the inconvenience of not relying on scores to skim comments, but I think that can actually be a good thing; I think that's just HN at a new (more sustainable) maturity.

The shorter answer to your question boils down to whether or not the winning caller used known information about the bias to his advantage. If he did, yes, he deserves some amount less than full credit -- fate will ultimately decide -- but more than zero credit, which would be in the case of a non-biased 50/50 choice. Also, I feel compelled to say I do believe Warren Buffet made the majority of his investment decisions on a mental certainty of far greater than 60% (unless the stake was quite small). One of the things about Warren Buffet's strategy is he buys for the long term, so, even if he's wrong in the short term, he won't sell. The company would practically have to go out of business for him to lose. The chance of that for companies he invests in is very slim.

Now, the place where I believe we are in discord is those instances when we are less certain we are making the right choice. If I walk up to a roulette table and choose black rather than red, and happen to win, I am certainly winging it and agree with you and the author entirely. However, I say the best chess player in the world would be able to tell you exactly why he (or she) made every move. They won't know with 100% certainty whether any given move is best, but they do know the logical mental progression taken to arrive at their choice, since they know strategy and likely outcomes. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economists or physicists in large part know exactly what they are doing, for example, when driving home, and when working mathematical calculations. Our disagreement is over those rarer occasions when they are less certain of the correct choice. You seem to say it's the same as a 50% coin toss in these cases, and they are winging it. I firmly disagree. While they can't know with 100% certainty which choice is correct, they can know what is more likely correct (and why they believe so), and that is what separates them -- and Warren Buffet, and chess masters -- from everyone else.

Well, yes, I can agree nobody can completely know or control the future. One may become terminally ill, or the Earth may be hit by a meteor at any time. However, that was not the argument made by the author. It was that none of us knows what we're doing. He seems to suggest we have little control over the outcomes which we do see, saying things like Nobel Prize winners are "winging it", as if they have the same understanding as anyone else (in this case none) when it comes to their expertise. I find that highly disconcerting.

If we imagine a chess match, where we know the duration will be a few hours, and the fitness of the players will not be compromised for the game duration, we can understand the winning or losing outcome is entirely in the hands of the players. If we further imagine the best chess player in the world accepts this match, and both players fully intend to win, if the best player wins would you agree it is because he (or she) does know what he (or she) is doing?

Let me rephrase the question: Would you give Warren Buffet credit for his investment success?

he has to decide to keep playing

You said "in the end" which I took to mean the coin flipping would continue until only one winner remained of the 1000.

and he has to decide whether to call heads or tails

To ensure we are imagining the same crucial parameters let me clarify these points: first, the coin itself is not biased in any way; second, the flipping action is not biased; it could be carried out by a mechanized flipper, for example; third, the choice of heads or tails is always made before the flip. Under these circumstances the actual calling of heads or tails does not matter. The caller will always have exactly a 50% chance of winning and losing.

I suspect there are real investment skills that can be learned and applied, much the same way a blackjack card counter gains a small edge that can be exploited over time

Well, that's the first thing you've said I can easily agree with. Yes, I certainly believe, given enough time, Warren Buffet could teach someone to follow his methodology to have nearly identical success. So which is it? Is Warren Buffet someone who knows what he's doing or not?

To answer your question, no, we don't laud the winner's coin flipping ability, because, in the absence of cheating, the person's actions and decisions don't influence the outcome. All participants have an exactly equal chance at being the end winner, and nothing will change that. However, some savvy investors, like Warren Buffet, are able to ensure they win over others using the stock market; the difference being that their decision making does directly influence whether they "win" or "lose".

It seems to me you're suggesting investors could use coin flipping to make all investment decisions, and that makes as much sense as trying to decide by other means, since they don't know what they are doing anyway. Correct?

What is the publicized formula for success?

By doing something, you expose yourself to fate.

There are millions that do something with the stock market every week. Why is Warren Buffet the only one with his level of investment success?

I'm afraid I don't follow. You're saying Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor of all time, doesn't know how he became successful? Or that some random chance gave him his uncanny investment insight? If that's the case why should we bother trying to control our lives at all? Why don't we just walk around with our eyes shut and hope luck drops into our lap?

In the late 1970s, the top 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. Now the top 1 percent’s take is more than 20 percent.

The chart you referenced shows tax revenues on the top 1% roughly doubled for the time period from 1979 to 2007, but over that approximate time period so did the total percent of the national income going to the top 1%! That would appear to explain much, if not all, of the increase right there. One wouldn't be able to take home double the income yet pay the same in taxes without serious loopholes.