In class and race struggles it's not uncommon to see someone worry aloud about token individuals who are "allowed" to succeed out of proportion to their peers. It gives the rabble hope, which keeps them sedate. But the success rate barely exceeds attrition at the top of the pyramid.
I don't think I personally will ever know if this is just an accident of the system (being happily exploited), planned, or a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B.
Enough notable success stories satisfies the Availability heuristic in your brain, but that often tricks you into thinking things are quite different than they actually are.
We see power-law distributions everywhere, notably the 80-20 Pareto rule. They are the rule with uniform distributions being the rare exceptions. The claim of a hidden puppeteer running this gigantic con that occasionally allows success and precisely mixes column A with column B such that the rabble attack one another only and never the mastermind pulling the strings is truly extraordinary.
I agree there's a lottery-like dynamic in open software funding. The winner-outliers are well known, broadly remarked, and frequently advertised. The long, long tail of financial busts gets downplayed, though we all know it's there.
Same for startups, by the by.
I don't think it's necessary to personalize the rules, odds, and constraints that reinforce these outcomes. We could find individuals who see how it works and like it. But I haven't seen evidence to show they add up to any kind of conscious conspiracy. I'm more concerned about the smaller players who aren't winning and haven't seen how the game is skewed.
I don't think I personally will ever know if this is just an accident of the system (being happily exploited), planned, or a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B.
Enough notable success stories satisfies the Availability heuristic in your brain, but that often tricks you into thinking things are quite different than they actually are.