No, it's not the same. Taleb points to the "envelope of serendipity" to emphasize just how important the element of chance really is. I.e., you can't discount

No, it's not the same. Taleb points to the "envelope of serendipity" to emphasize just how important the element of chance really is. I.e., you can't discount even the "chanciest" of chance events. That emphasis is lost in your translation. Also, I didn't mean to call your interpretation stupid...rather, that you're interpretation assumes a sort of stupidity on behalf of the speaker.