> but they don't define what luck is to begin with. They do though, the paper is focused on what you call "blind luck" in (1). I suppose it can be summarized

> but they don't define what luck is to begin with. They do though, the paper is focused on what you call "blind luck" in (1). I suppose it can be summarized as a evidence based counter argument to the cultural narrative weight given to 2,3,4, especially in the US. I don't think it is complete of course, but it is interesting.