You're absolutely right that this is the way the article presents it, but I'm not so sure that it's a useful definition of luck. It really just seems to extend

You're absolutely right that this is the way the article presents it, but I'm not so sure that it's a useful definition of luck. It really just seems to extend the definition of luck to include everything and makes the argument a tautology. Everything is luck-based because everything is luck. I don't think anyone who values people's aptitude diminishes their opinion of that aptitude because it requires a certain genetic profile. In things like athletics, it's even emphasized. This argument seems to create a strawman version of merit which means some kind of inner quality gained through pure willpower with no external influences from the world whatsoever. This might have some meaning in a certain kind of religious thinking which interprets the world as a reflection of a higher spiritual reality, but if we're confining our definitions to tangible things, it's an incomprehensible idea.