Yeah, sorry about that. I agree it indeed worked out for you and that is great.
The point that I'm getting at is that it is necessary for the system to occasionally produce a winner, because otherwise, people would stop trying.
Think for example about a casino with zero wins. No one would come to play.
If they however occasionally select a winner, that winner will then be the best marketing they can get, encouraging all his friends to also start gambling.
Please do not mistake this analogy as me questioning your merits.
I am confident in your abilities at your craft.
What I am however saying is that the system does not select its winners based on that merit. Instead, the criteria for selection are usually based on what benefits the system most.
This, in some situations, might line up with general merits to some degree, but it also might not, and that is one of the core deceptions, the corporate world runs on.
I do believe you that the idea of the article was to encourage people so that they can also have these great wins and experiences you had.
But, as said, that is just one side of the coin, and it would be unethical to not mention all the outcomes in which a person does not win.
> But the good news is that we can increase our chances of encountering good luck.
Every phrase in the article was carefully selected to make it clear that we're trying to increase the odds. Nothing is sure. But if you play the game right, the odds of winning go up
