People attribute almost everything to luck to feel better about their own lack of success. Luck plays a minor role. Intelligence and tenacity are much more important. If luck was the main factor nearly all successful programmers would come from China or India since they have the most entrants in the "lottery" for successful programmers.
You argue that intelligence and tenacity are more important than luck, but then it follows that since China and India have the most entrants, the only explanation for their lack of proportional success is lack of intellence and tenacity relative to Americans(I'm not saying you think this, I'm just noting it follows from your argument).
I would argue luck does play a big role, and that they weren't lucky enough to be born into a country with the standard of living, educational resources, and number of tech jobs that Americans have is the major differentiating factor.
I didn't mean to provide an exhaustive list successful characteristics.
Also it is a bit of a logical fallacy to say just because luck is not the main factor in success that being unsuccessful means you are lazy or dumb rather than unlucky.
You can take the luck argument too far though. You were lucky to be born as the you that you know because there were millions of other sperm competing to fertilize your mother's egg.
You can take it too far, but I think at a macro-level "luck", by which I mean random factors beyond your control, is by far the dominant factor. I do fairly well for myself, among the top 0.5% by world income, but I'm quite sure this is not because I am among the top 0.5% in world intelligence+tenacity. I like to think I'm fairly smart, especially when it comes to reading widely, in an interdisciplinary way, and making unexpected connections between different domains.
But honestly, I came pretty close to "winning" by the time I was 10 years old. I was born in one of the richest countries of the world, to well-off parents who were science/technology-minded, attending a good school district, etc. I also happen to have computer science as one of my strengths from a young age, partly due to foresighted parents who sent me to an after-school Logo program, and partly due to what feels like natural affinity. That pays well, while I could just as easily imagine being gifted in something less-lucrative, like music or history (I'm personally completely in awe of people who have perfect pitch and what seems like an innate sense of rhythm). I had to do relatively little on top of all that to succeed, at least compared to what other people would've had to do to succeed similarly. Basically had to not completely fuck it up. (And I assure you I am lazy as shit compared to a lot of people doing less well.)
Successful people attribute almost everything to their own intelligence, willpower or hard work to feel better about themselves. Luck is extremely important for any individual trial - once you get up to a large sample size, sure, your traits will win out - but many people will never reach such a sample size in their entire life.
When I see "fail fast", what I really think is: "increase your sample size".
This does not match my experience. While certainly some successful people like to take all the credit, most of the successful ones I know acknowledge either luck, fortune, or God's blessing played a huge roll in their success. Machievelli in particular talked about it at length in the Prince and other works.
But you can't directly control luck. You can directly influence the other factors, and while luck does play an important role, so do other factors. To borrow a quote, "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
