Getting a job is a competition. There is no absolute criteria for whether you should get a job or not. So why should an employer prefer you over someone who loves programming and problem solving so much that they do it as a hobby? If your excuse is that your previous jobs were so invigorating that you had no free time for personal software projects, then your reward is the higher pay you've received at those jobs compared to other easier ones you could have taken. If you decide to hike and paint instead of work on software for fun, that is perfectly fine, but those activities are simply less valuable to an employer. To me, this article is a textbook case of the "I do less work than my peers but should receive the same opportunities" complaint.
