The terms of this debate often seem wildly 'provincial' for want of a better word. 99% of the people yammering on about 'hiring the best' don't operate companie

The terms of this debate often seem wildly 'provincial' for want of a better word. 99% of the people yammering on about 'hiring the best' don't operate companies that could hire the actual 'best' under _any_ circumstances. Unless you can offer some combination of industry-leading salaries, major prestige, the opportunity to publish and/or work on their own stuff (if that's what people want), etc. you're not getting the best. Maybe very, very good. But not 'the best'. If you're not hiring for a Tier 1 research university or Google or Microsoft Research (in a different era), or paying massive salaries in the financials, ... think about it. This isn't simply snark. As long as people aren't getting to hire Thompson or Knuth or Lampson or whoever, they are in fact making compromises of sorts and should be thinking hard about what those compromises mean, rather than just proclaiming that they only hire the 'best of the best'.