That's the whole point of the article. Two possible conclusions:
One is that companies are cargo-culting hiring, and have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Clearly whatever the process is supposed to do, it's not hiring the "best people" by any realistic metric.
The other is that the process is working as intended, but the actual goals are not stated. This might be true if the aim is to hiring difficult and stressful for candidates to discourage job hopping. (Other interpretations are also possible. [1])
If a company wants the "best people" it needs to follow up hiring with performance tracking, and identify and reward the people and hiring practices which increase performance. [2]
If companies want hiring to continue as a social/political game which stresses and discourages developers, the system is working for them, and they don't need to change it.
Startups need to decide what kind of company they want to be. [3]
[1] IMO there may be a strong element of corporate narcissism in the process. It's not about hiring good people, it's about allowing the CEO and senior management to feel that their company is better than those other companies which hire these people. In reality "these people" may be a bit more than averagely competent, but with a few standouts most won't be insanely great or A players or 10X or whatever the goal is supposed to be.
[2] Which assumes it's possible to measure performance, which is a whole other issue.
[3] I'd bet almost anything that in reality there's a lot of "Oh, you were working with X at Y? Awesome!" affecting hiring choices in SV.