Quite frequently, what someone says does not exactly match what they mean.
When presented with with a "fact" that is very easy to contradict, like this one is, it's an indication that the author has made a poor choice of words, not that their point is without merit. In that case -- in all cases actually -- it's best to read for intent.
(edit: In this case, Schmidt is arguing that although the ad might say "rockstar programmer" that that's not what they're really looking for.)
When presented with with a "fact" that is very easy to contradict, like this one is, it's an indication that the author has made a poor choice of words, not that their point is without merit. In that case -- in all cases actually -- it's best to read for intent.
(edit: In this case, Schmidt is arguing that although the ad might say "rockstar programmer" that that's not what they're really looking for.)