> Elm completely blew their chance Blew their chance at what? And what trade-offs would have been necessary to take that chance? Those questions are at the he

> Elm completely blew their chance Blew their chance at what? And what trade-offs would have been necessary to take that chance? Those questions are at the heart of this talk, and I think make it clear that there is a much larger range of definitions for "success" than is often assumed. And that perhaps we should question the default definitions. Perhaps the decisions, if not the ones you would have taken, are not so obviously bad (or are at least understandable) with that in mind?