The language is clear and unambiguous, and is intended to set a floor for the caliber and quality of discussion here. If 30% of comments here are equally bad, that means it’s not enforced as well as it could be. It doesn’t mean we’re intentionally lowering the standards.

My intent when I made that statement was not how you interpreted it. Its people genuinely impress me. And besides, what if I could work for them? Wouldn’t you be happy for me? Why the sour grapes?

As the Guidelines also state (paraphrasing): use the most charitable interpretation of a fellow member’s contributions.

Well, you certainly didn't use the "most charitable interpretation" of my comment, now did you? Why not assume that I too am as competent as you see yourself and simply also don't want to move to Chicago where Jane Street definitely is? It's a weak person who hides behind rules they don't themselves follow.

Lots of companies manage to impress lots of incompetent, arrogant people. Your initial comment sounded like such a person and mothing you've said since has done anything to disabuse the reader of that. "The rules say you're not supposed to reply with sarcasm! Flagging your comment!" says the person that Jane Street would totally love to hire.

Like I said, you're just annoyed someone is criticizing your arrogance. If you weren't being arrogant, then my initial reply is utterly unobjectionable; it's only unkind or sarcastic in response to the arrogant interpretation of your initial comment, and is inert to the "best possible" interpretation by the rules you don't follow but want others to.