[jjav]

> There's probably less than 50 such places, total, on Earth, where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius.

What are these places?

Outside of a research lab, even if you had infinite money and hiring power, would you even want to staff a company where "where every single engineering position is occupied by a bonafide, legitimate, super-genius"?

If you're doing engineering (as opposed to pure research) the reality is that there's always a lot of unexciting work. Your super-geniuses don't care to do that, what you need is people who are smart enough, but more importantly reliable and willing to keep showing up and doing the work even when there's zero chance it puts them on track for a Nobel price (or field equivalent).

[logicchains]

Renaissance Technologies only hires quants with notable publications. You have to be pretty smart to make noteable STEM publications.

[jjav]

Finance is not engineering.

Ignoring that for a moment (although we shouldn't, different fields are different), their jobs page lists an opening for a Web Programmer that pays 143k-159k range in NY (i.e. very little). I'm guessing this role doesn't require notable publications and they're not looking for a "bonafide, legitimate, super-genius" to fill this role.

(Or if they are, they will never ever fill the role with that salary. They'd be fools to try and I assume they are not fools.)

That was my point. Companies will hire top talent for the revenue-leading roles but quite rationally don't need to do that for every single engineering role (as OP claimed) because there are plenty of jobs where a trustworthy responsible adult who gets the job done is exactly what they need, even if they don't have a Turing Award.

[ryandrake]

Also, why does having many "notable publications" make someone "the best"? That seems pretty arbitrary and subjective. How many Academic Publications™ does John Carmack have?