What I do take umbridge with is the complete dismissal of luck as a fcator. What I see here is what Chuck Wendig calls Survivorship Bias - "I worked hard and that is why I succeeded were others didn't" seems to be a valid position to somebody successful, but it dismisses the hard work those less successful have done.
Yeah, it's not cool to say that it's only because they worked harder than everyone else. There's definitely more to it.
Somebody upthread said that what's needed for success is hard work, smarts and luck, but I disagree. I'd say luck is a nice bonus, but it's not essential to get a lucky break. Or to put it another way, people can be successful without ever having a big lucky break. I know it's possible because I've seen people do it, and it's insulting to those who claim that they made it through hard work and being good at what they do, to say that they only made it through luck.
People can have lucky breaks, of course, but without the smarts to take advantage of it, that lucky success just fades away (and I've seen that happen, too).
Hard work is a pre-requisite for success, but it's not enough on its own. Understanding the market and learning the necessary skills (smarts) are also necessary but not sufficient. But together they ARE sufficient for long-term success. And a little luck doesn't hurt.
PS I work reasonably hard, but I don't have the marketing smarts, which is why I'll never be uber-successful.
You can put as much work into your barbecue party as you want, when the weather forecast fails you and it's pouring, that's just bad luck and even if you have some tents to shield you from the rain, it won't be as good a party with the bad weather beating down on your tents and moods.
I suppose the equivalent to the barbeque-day rain is Amazon changing the algos, but even then the smart people adjust quicker than anybody else. And some people are smart enough to see changes coming (the switch from KU1 to KU2, for instance; lots of people predicted that).