I think the author doesn't know how to prove a hypothesis that's why the article is confusing.
He tries to prove that kids are not predictors of successful startups, but then he cites successful startups that were popular with adults. That's not how you make a prove, you can't make a prove of x causing y by showing that z causes y.
For this article to make sense, the author has to find out if the ratio of successful startups that were initially popular with kids is higher that the one of successful startups that were initially popular with adults.
Example: If 30% of startups that were initially popular with kids became successful and 42% of startups that were initially popular with adults became successful, then his hypothesis holds true. That's how you prove a hypothesis, but not at all the way the author did it.
He tries to prove that kids are not predictors of successful startups, but then he cites successful startups that were popular with adults. That's not how you make a prove, you can't make a prove of x causing y by showing that z causes y.
For this article to make sense, the author has to find out if the ratio of successful startups that were initially popular with kids is higher that the one of successful startups that were initially popular with adults.
Example: If 30% of startups that were initially popular with kids became successful and 42% of startups that were initially popular with adults became successful, then his hypothesis holds true. That's how you prove a hypothesis, but not at all the way the author did it.