[lhorie]

If we're going to talk about polarization, it behooves us to bring up that this isn't a either-or topic: you could take risks and succeed, avoid risks and stagnate, but also take risks and fail as well as avoid risks and succeed.

If we're really going meta, it might also be appropriate to think about our tendency to attribute causation to simple inputs (i.e. either X or Y), when in reality, there may have been a mix of multiple things.

For example, the author attributes the existence of the palladium site to be a result of interest in governance, but wouldn't his background in engineering (instead of, say, rice farming) also logically have something to do with the physical manifestation of a website?

The idea that I think should be questioned is the one about "hacking life" in the sense of going all in on a single thing. In investment, that's called diversification. In nutrition, it's called a balanced diet. But for some reason, in some endeavors, moderation gets shunned (work hours in startups come to mind)

[chii]

> as well as avoid risks and succeed.

that's just pure luck, and i think a lot of people would imagine this is called "undeserved success".

[sidlls]

"Pure luck" is the source of almost every success story. The embellishments and particular details are often told quite well to cloud this.

[lhorie]

Just doing your well-paid job until a comfy retirement, taking regular vacations throughout the years and overall just having a normal boring happy life also falls under this umbrella.