His initial argument is that it's okay to be mediocre because continuous success is just a "paradigm." That much was already clear. His argument falls apart when he tries to justify having enough, since that contradicts his initial argument. If continuous success isn't written in stone, then neither is having enough.
Nokia's anecdotal demise isn't a reason to not seek continuous success. In fact, one could use that same anecdote to argue that having enough leads to failure.
Distance between a founder and the product isn't an argument for not seeking continuous success. Some people prefer that distance and consider separation of labor to be more efficient.
It's clear that DHH has some bias against success. Given articles like this and his public bet that Facebook's share price would fail. It isn't based in logic though, just ideology.
It's clear that DHH has some bias against success.
Quite on the contrary I and many others think of him as extremely successful:
Profitable since year 2 IIRC
Have built nice products that you can pay for by money (instead of by privacy)
Well known for a certain web framework that 100 000s of developers use and many love.
I'd even go so far as to say he influenced (not shaped though) our entire industry by showing how web development should be done in a world filled with ugliness like: old enterprise Java, old Spring, old Asp.Net webforms, old PHP etc.
If continuous success isn't written in stone, then neither is having enough.
Do you know what "contradict" means? Because that in no way contradicts his point that there are many paths, of which continuous growth is only one.
Nokia's anecdotal demise isn't a reason to not seek continuous success.
He didn't claim it was.
Distance between a founder and the product isn't an argument for not seeking continuous success. Some people prefer that distance and consider separation of labor to be more efficient.
Which is what he said. "Now some people clearly like that."
Care to offer some counter arguments?