The author mentions that 90% of resumes are probably not qualified for a position and suggests that many of those rejections are be due to a lack of relevant experience.

This sounds like a horrible idea. There's a well-established history of inexperienced people doing amazing things that their more experienced counterparts couldn't do. This often includes founders (also true in other disciplines like the arts and science)

Obviously this is a much more nuanced topic (personally, for most roles, I would not consider random resumes on general principle because I don't think it's a great way to make an impression) but if you're going to have hard rules to weed out resumes, I would not recommend using experience.

It's a bit pedantic because this is not the article's main point, but it stood out for me and I think discouraging inexperienced people from doing anything is generally a bad idea.