Because I read it far more as "This is going to be fucking hard, it sucks. Welcome to the trenches." That's considerably different than "I just did this simple thing and then money fell from the sky."
That, and the rest of the article goes on to focus on validating why your idea might not suck, or can at least be refined.
Your point is valid but if you read my comment I'm not arguing why the author is better or worse than the people he criticizes.
My point is that the author is using questionable rhetoric and is not being honest with his audience at best (and manipulative at worst) in his article. He could have easily made his point while not being any of that.
Disagree. His rhetoric is a necessary antidote to the rhetoric of the real snake-oil salesmen who speak from an assumed position of authority and present their entrepreneurship as a matter of blind will and charisma, when in fact - as he openly says has happened to himself - the real process is much much harder. You seem not to be able to read tonal nuances: he is clearly not placing himself in a position of greater success than his readers in order to sh*t on their ideas; he is deploying a generalised "reality-check" rhetoric to try to disperse the stench of nonsense emitted by the other "entrepreneurs". For you to take it personally kinda makes me chuckle.
That, and the rest of the article goes on to focus on validating why your idea might not suck, or can at least be refined.