I (also peripherally involved) suggest OPLC had a unicorn-or-dead business plan, but stalled unexpectedly long in not-quite-dead but not-unicorn-yet, and didn't

I (also peripherally involved) suggest OPLC had a unicorn-or-dead business plan, but stalled unexpectedly long in not-quite-dead but not-unicorn-yet, and didn't adapt well. Intel and Microsoft/Gates put a lot of effort towards dead. A unicorn story of "succeed (massive country-wide deployments), and they will come (developers, content creators, educators, etc; also network and power infrastructure, next-gen laptops, maintenance and deployment infrastructure, supply chains, etc)" means you're doing a minimum viable unicorn launch. So for illustration, when you're bouncing along, running out of runway, and Guido (python BDFL) publishes clueless criticisms, and the python open-source community isn't "showing up" to help, do you spend scarce funds on hiring a community outreach person to nudge that, or focus on making your next bounce just that little bit higher enough to ignite your unicorn rocket engine, and make training wheels and bootstrap wings a non-issue? Especially when a critical bottleneck isn't technical, but Bill flying around offering politicians Microsoft and Gates Foundation bounties on unicorn eggs. So I suggest the goal was to trigger mass deployments, supporting subsequent refinement. I'm unclear on what/which technical improvements might have been sufficient to alter the deployment outcome. But people have been critiquing the unicorn-pathfinder-prototype-alpha-preview-0.0.3 unicorn corpse ever since. :)