Same happens in some networking fields. It is truly pathetic. You get the impression that there is a large core of really bad "researchers" that try to keep everybody with half a clue and intact creativity out in order to prevent that people see how incompetent they are.

Not my experience. And with up to 6 reviewers, you would think that at least one would comment on the presentation, if it was the problem. In two instances I even got a best-paper award with exactly the same paper when it was finally accepted somewhere else.

For things that are common knowledge, no citations are needed. This is not an "accusation", but a well-known historic fact.

I am sure. You cannot actually patent science.

Fail. That is not what the article says. Read it again.

That is BS. Sure, IQs are indeed not distributed the same, but that is because the IQ does not measure intelligence but aptitude for IQ tests. All these tests are strongly flawed because they include strong cultural aspects. If you correct for those, the deviations in average IQ fall within the error ranges. There is also the little problem that US IQ tests use scales with higher numbers than the rest of the world does, most likely in an act of self-delusion.

The "training" of exceptional people does not have the same nature as training for other people. Exceptional people train themselves and some help can accelerate the process, but it is not the usual case of a teacher training them. The most critical skill an exceptional person in any field has is exceptional judgment what skills and knowledge will benefit them most. In conventional training, teachers make that determination, but that only works if the ones teaching are significantly better than the ones taught. That situation cannot be arranged for exceptional people, or only for a very small part of their training.

You logic is flawed. The matter of the fact is that you are not able to train anybody at all to be exceptional. Exceptional people train themselves (only way it works), giving them some help there just makes the process a bit faster.

Hint: You have not seen the great ones. You have seen those that think they are great but are actually not that good. Sure, many of these people are really good at writing complex, unmaintainable code and at demonstrating to everybody how smart they are. But that is not what makes a great engineer. Execution critically includes coordination, communication, maintainability, etc. To be a great programmer, you need 30% exceptional coding skills and 70% exceptional other skills that complement them. Of course, actually great coders also understand their worth and you do not get them for the usual "programmer" salaries, so it is quite understandable that you have not seen many or any.

Only of the playing-field was fair. It is not.

Having done quite a bit of code reviews, I fully agree. The need is not for more programmers, but for a lot less. Most people writing software these days have negative productivity, as the few good ones need to clean up their messes.

You know, these days the US is perceived as such an undesirable destination with all its xenophobia that even that will not get you the top people. Really exceptional technical people are not primarily motivated by money and cannot be.

That is called the "Peter Principle": Promote people doing their current job well such that they get new roles. Stop promoting them when they are incompetent at their current role. That way, in hierarchies, most positions are filled with incompetent people. That is why truly good engineering companies have a technical career track. Not that there are many of those left.

They cannot work successfully remotely. I once had the displeasure to do a review of a large piece of really bad "high quality" code written in India. One problem was that mist people working on it were morons. The other was that by the comments the one competent person left in the code, they did not have the information needed to produce the code and he was unable to reach anybody that could give it to him while trying very hard for months. (The morons never even noticed they did not really understand what the code was supposed to do. But they did nice things like using quadratic sorting algorithms on arbitrary long data.)

You forget that this is true if you count the number of software copies.