
Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012 - prayag
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/30-under-30/30-under-30.html?v=1
======
pg
I can fit it in an HN comment: Congratulations Nate, Adora, Aaron, Patrick,
John, Dave, Eric, Adam, Steve, Danny, Robby, Victor, Matt, Drew, Arash, Alex,
Boris, Alexis, Joshua, Blake, David, Zach, Dan, Kate, Seth, Ben, Anand,
Philipp, and Prayag!

~~~
pg
Yipes, I missed an entire category: Congratulations Suhail, John, Apoorva,
Matt, Mazy, Ben, and Emmett too!

~~~
m0th87
Don't forget Kathryn. The Muse is YC funded as well.

[http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeji45eegdf/kathryn-
minshew-2...](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeji45eegdf/kathryn-
minshew-27-founder-ceo-the-daily-muse/)

~~~
anandkulkarni
Not to mention Tom, Ilan, and Mahbod!
[http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeel45ldjm/mahbod-moghadam-
il...](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeel45ldjm/mahbod-moghadam-ilan-zechory-
tom-lehman/)

~~~
pg
Oops, yes, sorry guys.

------
hack_edu
At the risk of offending the rah-rah YC back-patting... the entire Tech
section is full of people who run or founded companies. Those all could fall
into the Media, Social, or Marketing sections. It just seems like they're
piling all the big-named startup dudes in wherever they can.

Shouldn't people blazing trails of real, new technologies get some recognition
here? Those who bootstrapped this year's hundredth social-local-mobile app are
rarely the ones creating new technologies and platforms that change the way we
use technology. And yes, there are exceptions, but lets be honest here. Heaven
forbid some academics or open-source maintainers get some attention. They went
that route quite a bit before this boom.

~~~
klochner
The Forbes brand is about money and wealth - they're most famous for the
Forbes 500 list of 500 wealthiest individuals - so including academics or
open-source people wouldn't make sense.

------
sixQuarks
Forbes 30 under 30 is a joke. One of the characters on Bravo's "Startup
Silicon Valley" was chosen a couple of years ago:

[http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeji45ikli/sarah-austin-
host-...](http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeji45ikli/sarah-austin-host-
pop17-25/)

Anyone that's watched that show can tell you what a joke/fake she is.

I'm not saying everyone on that list isn't impressive, but I would certainly
take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
mnicole
It seems odd to me that they highlighted Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber,
etc. under Music when there are plenty of successful internet-/self-created
acts that are much more impressive in talent and ability to market. Seems
unfair to people who don't have millions of dollars and dozens of handlers.

When I think 30 Under 30, I think people I don't know that are pushing the
industry forward, not people that are shoved down my throat through old
methods.

~~~
bcoates
Justin Bieber isn't exactly in my musical demographic, but wasn't he some sort
of Internet-famous YouTube thing before he was real-world famous? Or is that
just the usual puff piece fake backstory?

~~~
hellojames
Via Wikipedia:

As he grew up, Bieber taught himself to play the piano, drums, guitar, and
trumpet. In early 2007, aged 12, Bieber sang Ne-Yo's "So Sick" for a local
singing competition in Stratford and was placed second. Mallette posted a
video of the performance on YouTube for their family and friends to see. She
continued to upload videos of Bieber singing covers of various R&B songs, and
Bieber's popularity on the site grew. Chris Hicks, Bieber's A&R at Island/Def
Jam, explained Bieber's huge online following to HitQuarters, stating: "He was
doing something different. He was an attractive white kid singing very soulful
R&B hits. That set him apart immediately from anyone in his range because no
one was covering or singing these kind of records."

FWIW, I don't like Bieber's music. But I respect him as a performer and moreso
as a socially responsible figure (e.g. participates a lot in the Make-a-Wish
foundation, donates a lot of his money to charities)

------
eranation
As someone 35 years old, I wonder - how many successful co-founders are there
between 30-40? are there any statistics on that? What is the histogram by age
for top 1000 startups? (any metric marking what "top" means will do)

And congratulations by the way to all the people on the list, instead of
hurting my ego and discouraging me, I see this as a way to motivate me to make
it to a 40 under 40 list (I'm sure there is one somewhere)

~~~
petercooper
_how many successful co-founders are there between 30-40?_

 _Historically_ , at least, it'd be most. In _Gamers at Work_ , Nolan Bushnell
(founder of Atari) even noted that he was seen as being a "young" founder in
Silicon Valley being in his 30s in the 1970s. What we're seeing nowadays with
20-somethings is relatively new.

------
dotBen
Just remember this list is not based on meritocracy, most/all these people
will have publicists and/or their startups will have "good" PR firm
representation.

If you secretly wish you were on this list but don't have the above then you
are doing it wrong.

~~~
DaniFong
Nobody I know who is on the list has a publicist.

------
cwe
Is there an actual list of only 30 names? Trying to read through this, I see
30 in each category. I guess "450 under 30" doesn't have the same ring.

~~~
trotsky
There are actually 40 names in just the tech category. Talk about completely
unwilling to stick to the format.

------
pla3rhat3r
This list just makes me depressed that I'm nearly 40 and haven't done half of
what these brianiac kids have done. Er, I mean, BRILLIANT!

------
Matt_Mickiewicz
Nice to see so many familiar names on the Tech 30 under 30 list, congrats to
Dan Siroker from Optimizely, Anthony from Kaggle and Darian. (Disclosure: I
was on the list last year).

~~~
kayoone
that disclosure sounds like bragging, sorry

~~~
HorizonXP
And what's wrong with that?

People can't be happy with their accomplishments?

~~~
michaelochurch
Being on the list is not, itself, a real accomplishment.

Building the business that gets you on the list _is_ an accomplishment. After
that, getting picked just means you know the right people. It's a derivative
accomplishment that, on its own, has zero meaning or value.

Be proud of the thing you built, not the social noise surrounding "cool kids"
lists. Who gives a shit? Do something cool, and take pride in that.

------
adebelov
YC dominates the list :)

------
georgecmu
Telling quote:

 _At age 14, Wilson became the youngest ever to build a nuclear fusion
reactor._

------
arkem
Congratulations to Parisa!

It's good to see security represented on the list, and Parisa's work at Google
makes her a brilliant choice.

------
robryan
I am skeptical on these lists, how many tech people are they actually aware of
to choose the list, would surprise me if it was chosen from a pool of less
than 100 possible people.

Also as I have seen in the past from these lists they use money raised as a
metric for achievement/ success.

------
jacquesm
Even Forbes outsources their vetting to YC ;)

------
jordo37
Congrats to all the YC folks! Amazing to see how much they dominated the list.

------
Impatient
Does anyone under 30 (or 40, for that matter) read Forbes?

~~~
dysoco
I'm 15 and I read Forbes occasionally, some articles about startups are
interesting.

------
jedberg
I tweeted it, but I think I'll repeat it here: Proud to know and have worked
with more than a few folks on Forbes' 30 under 30. Congrats to all of them!

------
sunsu
Congrats to Darian! Radius is doing some amazing things!

------
kerno
So. Much. Clicking. Around.

------
TommyDANGerous
Props to the FiveStar guys.

------
tedkalaw
Congrats Remind101 and ClassDojo! It's cool to see ImagineK12 teams up there
:)

------
donal_cahalane
Proud of our four Irish entrants on the tech list. Go Ireland!

------
Peroni
Just out of curiosity, is the list intended to be US specific or do they take
non-US based folk into consideration?

------
michaelochurch
This thread has made me think less of Hacker News. All of it. The hate posts
were pretty petty, but the fawning is pretty gross as well.

We wonder why there's so much ageism. It's because age obsessions stem from
this "cool list" narcissistic nonsense. But this is a prejudice all of us will
face, because we're all (well, almost all, and with luck) going to be old some
day.

The sign of maturity is to see something like this, neither be impressed nor
upset/resentful, and just move on. Some magazine made a list somewhere. There
were names on it. Don't remember most of 'em. Not news, not interesting,
#toobusygettingshitdone, et cetera.

I didn't even read the list and have no idea who's on it, so I have no opinion
of the selection, but the fact that people care is appalling.

~~~
pg
_The sign of maturity is to see something like this, neither be impressed nor
upset/resentful, and just move on._

If that's what you think, why didn't you?

~~~
jkn
From OP's comment: _I didn't even read the list and have no idea who's on it_

He might not be interested in Forbes' list, but care about the reaction from
the HN community. I see no contradiction.

~~~
pg
From OP's comment: _It's because age obsessions stem from this "cool list"
narcissistic nonsense._

------
wilfra
It's obnoxious how they do these things, milking every last pageview they can
possibly get. I can't make it through this and I'm extremely interested in the
subject matter.

Is there a text list of all of the people and what company they are with
somewhere? Preferably visible on one page?

~~~
BallinBige
all about the ad impressions, at the end of the day. mighty mighty CPM dollars
ya'll

------
sprash
Mostly kids of rich fucks... go figure.

~~~
HorizonXP
I can assure you, one of my good friends is on that list, and he is far from
being a child of some rich fuck.

Temper your attitude, this is a significant accomplishment for these people.
There's no need to be malicious against them for their success.

~~~
sprash
Sorry but I have a degree in nuclear physics, working a full time job and
can't even afford a car. Something tells me those people just had a lot of
luck!

~~~
HorizonXP
I'm going to sound brash, arrogant, and a bit racist when I ask this, but let
me guess: you're probably _not_ the child of immigrant parents.

While there definitely is a "white" advantage in this world, and many people
on these lists may have been born into privilege, your attitude towards it is
pretty bullshit. My point about not being the child of immigrant parents was
to highlight this attitude. Immigrant children tend to look at the world
differently. They usually have to work harder to get their opportunities, and
they'll do what it takes to get them. They have hustle.

It's true, a lot of your success depends on who you know, not what you know.
You can either mope around and accept that you'll never be "successful," or
you can get your ass in gear and make your own luck.

The choice is yours.

~~~
sprash
This is the old story of "if you work hard enough you will be just as
successful" and it is of course bullshit. There is an easy proof for this:
Income distribution.

The income distribution would be a Gaussian distribution like intelligence,
body height and all other kinds of human traits, if it were truly determined
by accomplishement.

But since the income distribution has a rather exponential shape the
underlying events must be independent and poissonian distributed, similar to a
series of small lottery games or to put it simply: luck!

The first of those lottery games in your life is the question of: are your
parents rich or not.

~~~
Domenic_S
If you were born in a first world country, then yes, your parents were rich.
We are the global 1%.

Your income distribution analysis is flawed in a few ways though. You can't
have negative height or negative intelligence, but you can have negative
income. Likewise, there is an upper bound on human traits, but no functional
upper bound on income. Moreover, money grows logarithmically but human traits
inherit very slowly.

Anyway, that's not the point. You sound unhappy. You should fix that. Start by
realizing that money won't fix it.

~~~
hazov
A Gaussian need not to have a 0 mean and a 1 variance.

