
The Forbes ‘30 Under 30’ Hustle - Jhsto
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-forbes-30-under-30-hustle?pu=hackernews7r16e7&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock
======
PragmaticPulp
I know two people on the “30 under 30” list. Both of them are incredibly
charismatic and charming in person. Their Instagram and Twitter accounts churn
out constant brand building material. They both have pseudo-startups with
noble causes and vibrant websites. Their startups have a list of impressive
advisers, including B-list senators and industry executives.

However, neither of them have made any progress on building an actual
business. One of them has supposedly been developing the same simple product
for almost 7 years now, but they’ve never been able to produce even a proof of
concept prototype.

I thought I was missing something for the longest time, until I let go of the
idea that they were really trying to build a company. They’re not. They’re
building their personal brand, and succeeding wildly thanks to publications
like the “30 under 30” list that have an insatiable appetite for underdog
success stories.

Surely some of these companies are legitimately successful with great business
models, but they’re mixed into these lists with the brand builders who know
how to game the system. I’d be interested in reading an honest “Where are they
now” follow up series that checks in with these founders at the 5-year mark
after they make this list to see who the real successes are.

~~~
whatshisface
How do you "cash out" on brand building if your company isn't doing anything?
Motivational speaking?

~~~
Roritharr
Jumping into a high paying bullshit job, being on advisory boards, networking
yourself into circles where your Rolodex becomes valuable that intro's from
you can get you 70% into raising VC...

I've seen quite a few of these people in my area and they disgust me every
time, coming from a "work is only valuable if it's hard" work-ethic family.

~~~
puranjay
It's an epidemic in my industry (marketing) so much so that I feel like I'm
doing something wrong if I'm not out there building a personal brand.

I just feel that the work I do should be all the "brand" I need to build. Yet
everything around me points to the contrary.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
You feel that actual value should be all that someone or something should need
to be successful and that focusing on building a brand should be no
substitute? And you work on what again?

~~~
puranjay
I meant I see no point in building a personal brand.

My corporate brand is doing fine

------
evanwarfel
> “The two most coveted symbols online are an Instagram verification and being
> on Forbes 30 Under 30,” said Taylor Offer, founder of an apparel startup
> called Feat Socks, who mentions his Forbes win (class of 2018) in his
> Instagram bio. “It’s a mark of validation.”

A little digging reveals that Feat Socks sells socks and hoodies.
([https://featsocks.com/](https://featsocks.com/))

>“Hell yeah, it’s better than going to Harvard or Stanford,” said entrepreneur
Katelyn O’Shaughnessy, who didn’t attend either school.

For what, the social validation? O'Shaughnessy's business
([https://doctours.com](https://doctours.com)) appears to be a get-healthcare-
in-another-country-and-have-a-vacation travel agency.

>“I wanted to throw up at the entire thing,” said Andy Sparks, an entrepreneur
who was on this year’s list, describing his reaction to the Summit, a Forbes
event that celebrates the Under 30 community. “I had an existential crisis
coming back from it. I wondered why I wanted to get on the list and be a part
of this community in the first place.”

Ah! A critical thinker.

> Corporate sponsors such as The Macallan whiskey and Courtyard by Marriott
> pay big fees to get their brands in front of the young professionals who
> flock to the events. In 2016, Ocean Spray created a cranberry bog in a
> wading pool in Boston during the event, partly to highlight the fruit as an
> ingredient in cocktails.

Sign. Me. UP.

~~~
triceratops
> O'Shaughnessy's business ([https://doctours.com](https://doctours.com))
> appears to be a get-healthcare-in-another-country-and-have-a-vacation travel
> agency

To be fair, that's not a bad idea or business. Medical tourism is a big
industry[1] and finding trusted healthcare providers in a foreign country is a
tough task.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism)

------
tylermenezes
I was on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list this year, and five alums from the org I
run have also made the list over the years, as well as two friends of mine.
They are all are pretty reasonable people who have done cool things.

I'm not surprised they were able to find a few that were crazier, though. It's
not substantially different from an obsession with getting into YC or raising
VC money. I've done both of these things as well, and I met many of the same
people. They will always find something to be obsessed by.

And for what it's worth, all the recognition I've gotten over the years has
never really translated to much of a business advantage, but it's still pretty
neat to be recognized for something you've been putting a lot of work into.

~~~
171243
Interesting. As an informal evaluations of the premise of the top comment in
this thread I read your bio. I am posting the comment and your bio here for
other interested individuals:

The comment:

>I know two people on the “30 under 30” list. Both of them are incredibly
charismatic and charming in person. Their Instagram and Twitter accounts churn
out constant brand building material. They both have pseudo-startups with
noble causes and vibrant websites. Their startups have a list of impressive
advisers, including B-list senators and industry executives. However, neither
of them have made any progress on building an actual business. One of them has
supposedly been developing the same simple product for almost 7 years now, but
they’ve never been able to produce even a proof of concept prototype. I
thought I was missing something for the longest time, until I let go of the
idea that they were really trying to build a company. They’re not. They’re
building their personal brand, and succeeding wildly thanks to publications
like the “30 under 30” list that have an insatiable appetite for underdog
success stories. Surely some of these companies are legitimately successful
with great business models, but they’re mixed into these lists with the brand
builders who know how to game the system. I’d be interested in reading an
honest “Where are they now” follow up series that checks in with these
founders at the 5-year mark after they make this list to see who the real
successes are.

And your bio:

>Tyler Menezes is the Executive Director at SRND, where he works to increase
diverse Computer Science enrollment across North America by inspiring
underrepresented students to give coding a try. Born in Canada but raised in
the Pacific Northwest, he briefly attended the University of Washington before
dropping out to start a Y Combinator and venture-backed social video startup
in 2011. This, combined with stints working in machine learning at Microsoft
Research and as a programmer at several Seattle startups, led to his work
finding data-driven solutions to increasing CS diversity and enrollment since
2014. In his free time, Tyler helps run the Projects in CS class at Garfield
High School, and organizes the public speaking event Ignite Seattle.

~~~
tylermenezes
I don't really understand what you're trying to suggest from my bio??...

>Their Instagram and Twitter accounts churn out constant brand building
material. >They’re building their personal brand

I don't even have an Instagram? And literally I made two business-related
tweets in the last month, one of which was a RT of someone commenting on how
the org I run is valuable. Which brings me to...

>They both have pseudo-startups

I run a nonprofit that's had about 42,000 students attend mostly physical, in-
person events in 53 cities, over the last 10ish years. We are profitable and
have employees. Our programs have a NPS of 70-80 and we get grants from a
bunch of big companies on the basis of our outcomes. This has been my full-
time job and only livelihood for the last 5 years.

>I’d be interested in reading an honest “Where are they now” follow up series
that checks in with these founders at the 5-year mark

We've been around for 10 years, and I've been the ED for 5. We have continued
to grow and improve our key metrics although we're not a startup and I'm not
going for meteoric growth.

~~~
rwnspace
You may have been confused, yet you've elaborated GPs point for us very
nicely. Two rather different impressions of people on the list in question.

------
traviswingo
Unfortunately, this list is a total joke.

I know someone who made the list last year, and it's literally their only
accomplishment. They spent so much time trying to look good on paper that
they've yet to accomplish anything real in life.

Their resume _looks_ great though...

~~~
MuffinFlavored
How can you be worth $30m but not have accomplished anything?

Edit: I'm dumb, this isn't what 30 under 30 means.

~~~
magashna
Have rich deceased parents.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
I would hope journalists do a bit more research than "you were born with
$29,999,995 to your name and you have since earned $5 in your time alive.
Welcome to the club!"

~~~
Reedx
One would hope so. But they often don't, especially when the goal is clicks.

------
gnicholas
> _Fast Company has compiled a list of the most innovative companies, charging
> applicants fees between $495 and $1,000 to be considered._

I find this pretty distasteful, at least in the startup context. They’ve
repeatedly approached me (after covering my startups) to apply. I’ve asked
them if we can have the fee waived since they’ve essentially pre-vetted us,
but no dice.

It might make sense to suck it up and pay them since we probably have a decent
shot of getting selected, but I’ll never do it.

~~~
syedkarim
Is there a tangible value to being on that list?

~~~
gnicholas
I would guess there are two possible benefits:

1: publicity from being on the list, which FastCo presumably promotes at least
once during the year (and probably leave up during the year)

2: being able to say you were selected for FastCo's list, which presumably
gives you cred among certain groups. I do wonder if you might be held in lower
regard by people who are aware that the competition costs so much just to
enter.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
I for one will never forget what it means now that I know they paid a bribe to
be on it.

~~~
gnicholas
I would actually be interested to know what percent of companies that pay to
enter are included on one of the lists. If a large percentage of companies are
honored, then it seems like a pretty transparent pay-to-play. This means the
list is pretty worthless.

OTOH, if a small percentage of companies are honored, then that means lots of
companies are paying non-trivial fees and getting nothing in return. I believe
the money is used to pay the people who review the applications, but unless
those people have to be paid hundreds of dollars per application, or unless
they have a high degree of redundancy in application review, the application
fees wouldn't make sense. Basically, it would mean the list is a money-maker
for them because they're accepting fees from so many unqualified companies.

Either way (pay-to-play or revenue source), it definitely leaves a bad taste
in my mouth.

Frankly, it'd be cool if they offered a way to crowdsource the selection
process, where each company that applied was given 10 companies to rank. As
long as the 10 given to each person were randomly selected, it would be
difficult/impossible to game the system and upvote friends. Also, companies
could be given applications from other lists (I think there's a social-impact
list and a general-purpose innovation list) to make sure there are no
conflicts.

------
dharmon
For some perspective, think of all the notable people you can name. Not just
the huge names, but people from your particular field / sub-field, etc. How
many made this list and similarly useless ones? Like the Academy Awards,
sometimes the out-group is better company.

Even though he's an ass, I find Taleb's approach amusing. Copied from his
webpage:

> (Please refrain from offering honorary degrees, awards, listings in "100
> most...",& similar debasements of knowledge that turn it into spectator
> sport).

~~~
misiti3780
He's an ass for sure, but his commentary is spot on. Refreshing to hear in
this fake-ass world we now all live in.

~~~
coldtea
I think his main issue is being a little narcissistic and boastful, plus likes
to be provocative and even insult.

But I'd take all those from someone with actual substance and talent as Taleb,
than the barrage of fake-ass (as you call it) PR content and pleasantries, on
this fake-ass world we now all live in.

In fact, I actively dislike the non-flaws (or just "admitted flaws" they're
now "overcoming") "wholesome" all-too-decent people and writers, who never
want to dirt their hands and have it good with everybody, and mostly produce
trite of the TedX variety...

~~~
o09rdk
Eh. I admit I have a complex with Taleb. It's not just his narcissism per se,
although there's that too: he's just wrong about a lot of stuff, and other
times fails to recognize how old his ideas are. He gets over his head
sometimes, assuming because it sprung forth in his head there haven't been
100s of other people working on it over the years who addressed whatever idea
he had decades ago.

Other times he's spot on. Usually it's not anything actually new, but he
deserves some credit for being such a bulldog about it.

~~~
andreilys
Curious to hear which of his points you think are wrong?

~~~
o09rdk
I don't follow him regularly unless something he's saying comes up somehow, at
which point I kinda look into him again.

He's famous for lambasting psychology, some of which is deserved, but some of
which is just ignorant. Earlier this year he started complaining about
psychologists ignoring long-tailed/skewed distributions, which is so absurd
and widely written about I don't even know where to start, as it's a basic
corollary of a lot of modern models. He also selectively miscites literature;
god forbid he should do a systematic meta-analysis.

More of my concern is reinventing the wheel. I think he deserves a lot of
credit for drawing attention to wrong models and assumptions in economics but
model misspecification has been a topic that's been written about for decades
in the statistics literature (e.g., "all models are wrong but some are
useful", sandwich error estimators, pseudolikelihood ratio, model averaging,
the work of Dawes, etc.). I agree with the general point he's making with
these types of things, but his discussions would be a lot more interesting if
he gave credit where it's due, expanding on others' past work rather than
burying it.

Mostly I wish he'd tone himself down a bit, to get his signal:noise ratio in a
better place. But then maybe he wouldn't draw attention to some of these
issues.

------
robotstate
I hope everyone understands that this list and Forbes in general are a
complete joke. I know people who have been on the list, and while they're nice
people, they didn't really do anything besides either having connections to
the people who make the list or being in the right place at the right
time/lucky.

As for the publication, almost anyone can write for it. Calling yourself a
"Forbes writer" is one step above a "Medium writer".

------
hmschreck
Someone from my local community runs a non-profit that, on paper, sounds
great, and he gets a ton of these types of awards for the work he does. Except
he doesn't actually do much work. I don't mean he, personally, isn't
responsible for all the success his org has, I mean his org does very little
of the work they purport to do. They focus on getting a few very high-profile
placements per year that they can tout as successes, but overall, not many
successes that are coming strictly out of this program.

Dude's also one of the types who acts like doing "so much good in the world"
gives him the right to put down literally everyone else in the community.

------
seem_2211
I know a few people who were put on the list of 30 under 30 a few years ago.
Nothing particularly interesting has come from then since they won the award.

It's one of those things, where the more personal brand building you do
(speaking, posting on LinkedIn to a degree, tweeting), the more of a negative
signal it probably is, with a few notable exceptions (Keith Rabois for example
stands out as a VC with a good track record, yet posts a fair bit).

I do sales recruiting. It's never the strongest startups, that are doing the
best that have executives and VPs all posting content 24/7.

To that degree, I have a friend who is a personal trainer at Equinox, who
essentially said the same thing in the health and fitness world - the people
who are posting the most impressive work on social media, actually tend to
have fairly lagging results in the real world.

Also, final point, it's not really 30 under 30, it's 600 under 30, and it's a
bit ridiculous. You can't really compare someone like Kylie Jenner or Lil Uzi
Vert or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with someone who runs a startup that sells
socks online.

~~~
james_s_tayler
What's wrong with Lil Socks Online?

~~~
seem_2211
There's absolutely nothing wrong with selling socks online, and I'm happy that
someone is doing it, but you can't convince me that that is innovation worth
celebrating.

------
yoran
I was selected for the 2018 Forbes 30 under 30, together with my co-founder.
It has brought me absolutely nothing, besides scoring some points with the in-
laws. Well, it did get me spam, offering discounts for private jets. For some
reason, these companies paying for ads think that Forbes 30 under 30 people
have "made it". Completely untrue, running and growing my startup has been
just as hard after as before getting the award.

~~~
bitL
Did they offer you to buy a private island as well? I received that once :D

------
sncsy
I used to work with a guy who made the Forbes "30 Under 30". He had a friend
who worked at Forbes. He was a low-level lawyer in a congressional office and
completely exaggerated his role in the article. When we all saw it, we
laughed. The guy was almost fired on the spot and had his role significantly
diminished -- he was gone soon after. It's a joke.

------
norisushi
I worked at one of the social platforms for many years. We had someone on one
of the teams nominated (by us) and make it to the 30U30 list. We had a focused
PR push to get this person on the list because it was good for the company.
This person was in fact relatively junior and had no specific history that you
could point to for excellence. They were a great person, but top 30 would be
hard to argue.

There was no explicit quid pro quo that I was witness to, but I know that we
gave the magazine an exclusive interview with our CEO not long after and I
heard they were related. My point is that so many of these rewards are just
more of who do you know, and have little value in fact when you dig in a bit.

~~~
ackbar03
This seems like the smart way to go about it to be honest. I think anyone who
really knows their worth wouldn't really be too fussed about making it on the
list except purely for marketing reasons and those who really need it are by
reasoning probably startups that are struggling on some front. Making it on
the list if anything could draw ridicule from people in the same industry who
don't need cheap marketing. Thus crafting up some "fake" guy to be in the list
for some pr seems like a good way to get the best of both worlds

------
knzhou
I like to think of this kind of game like dark matter. In some theories of
dark matter, there are entire "dark sectors", families of particles that only
interact with each other, that harmlessly pass through you all the time.
Similarly, you have to care about prestige to get prestige -- but if you don't
care, the loss doesn't hurt at all. It just passes by harmlessly, like so much
noise.

~~~
windsurfer
It's been relatively agreed upon that dark matter can't interact with itself
very much either, since it forms a spherical cloud around galaxies instead of
the more expected disk shape, and dark matter clouds passing by each other
don't seem to slow down or be affected in ways other than gravitation. More
info: [https://www.space.com/40219-dark-matter-feels-only-
gravity-m...](https://www.space.com/40219-dark-matter-feels-only-gravity-
maybe.html)

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
It’s ok it’s likely the 30 under 30 don’t affect each other either.

------
rblion
I know a kid who aspires to be this, he is 27. Used to be in charge of a
fraternity and now has a podcast about 'hustling'. He doesn't write code,
design interfaces, write copy, or have a track record of building anything. He
is literally a hype man for his podcast and the startup he works for. He tells
everyone 'his CEO is like a modern day Tesla' but that is FAR from the truth.
He is smart sure but I've met smarter people on HN and no one here would ever
claim to be 'a modern day Tesla'. I don't even think Elon is that bold. They
have a 'streaming platform with lower latency'.

------
andrewbinstock
30 Under 30 is a lot like Mensa--the only benefit of getting in is so you can
tell others you got in.

~~~
newguy1234
Sounds very similar to ivy league schools :)

------
ganitarashid
I stopped reading the 30 under 30 thing when Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t on the
list when he was 29. Back then, before all the scandals when he had a great
image, if he wasn’t on the list then the list just didn’t make sense.

------
magashna
>How a 102-year-old magazine publisher created a frenzy among millennials
eager to make its annual list.

Do people under 30 even read Forbes? Or magazines?

The MIT Tech Review seems more focused and also does a "Innovators under 35"
list

~~~
MuffinFlavored
I'm 26 and the only thing I read are HN comments. I don't even read the
articles. :)

~~~
programmertote
Ditto. Nowadays, I found that it's easier to just go straight to HN comments
and determine if I should spend time reading the articles posted here. :) Of
course sometimes, I end up spending more time reading comments, but at least,
I feel like I am better informed to judge the articles if I decide to read
them after reading the comments here.

~~~
Scoundreller
It’s not a new feeling.

I think “RTFA” was invented on Slashdot, but that’s probably because I’m too
young to realize it’s from newsgroups.

------
synaesthesisx
Forbes is not a credible publication, and their 30 under 30 list is a joke - I
have two acquaintances who socially engineered their way onto the list with
the right narratives. One went as so far to use that status to (presumably)
swindle investors as I'm told. It's a platform that appeals to people building
a personal brand/narrative, and I would be extremely wary of anyone using
Forbes as some sort of validation. Let's not forget how they put Elizabeth
Holmes on their pedestal.

~~~
throw_xyzyz
HM isn't much better. The first time I was banned here was for calling her a
fraud who is getting away with what she's doing because of all the useful
idiots who put identity ahead of substance.

------
neom
I know some really great people on 30 under 30 who do deserve to be there. For
example my friend Susan Ho[1] who is not only a formidable founder, but also
worked to expose some rampant sexual misconduct in venture capital in spite of
the risks. Unfortunately I suspect folks like Susan are in the minority.

[1]: [https://www.forbes.com/profile/susan-
ho/#4e9e74c9578b](https://www.forbes.com/profile/susan-ho/#4e9e74c9578b)

~~~
gist
> who do deserve to be there. ..... but also worked to expose some rampant
> sexual misconduct in venture capital in spite of the risks

I am not seeing how that is even relevant to getting on this list and that in
no way means I think the list isn't fluff.

The list claims to do the following:

'annual list chronicling the brashest entrepreneurs across the United States
and Canada'

~~~
AndrewBissell
You don't think it takes brashness, as an entrepreneur, to speak out against
VC sexual misconduct when it could put your business's lifeblood funding in
jeopardy?

------
paxys
Much like most other lists of this nature, it's recognizing the 30 best
networkers and self-marketers (not that there's anything wrong with that).

------
xwdv
I was a Forbes 30 under 30 back in 2013 for working on a startup that was
building a platform to help poor farmers in India obtain more favorable
financing from private citizens in first world nations.

The list is mostly bullshit, I’d go as far as to say you should be very
skeptical of anyone on it or that bothers to mention it, as they are almost
surely just brand builders.

By the way, I _lied_ about actually being on the list, but I bet if I never
said that most people wouldn’t even think twice to fact check me. Funny how
that works. Try throwing in a “Forbes 30 under 30” bullet point in your next
resume and see what happens.

------
sbussard
I know two people who made the list. I was pretty impressed at the time. But
life goes on. Staying successful is harder. That's why some people say NFL
stands for "Not For Long". Invest yourself wisely.

------
duaoebg
I know at least 3 people on this list. Pretty much everyone I know considers
it to be quid pro quo. One of my friends suggested that it cost their company
~$100K in extra marketing spend to secure a spot. The other two were backed by
powerful people and didn't know how much it costs but it was considered a big
favor. A VC offered me a spot on the list as part of their investment in a
proposed company. I presume this was also part of their marketing spend.

I still think it can be valuable to be on the list. The US loves its secret
and the not-so-secret societies and being in them can afford a rather nice fun
life. I would generally recommend them if you can.

The age requirement is more than a youth fetish, it is a way of discerning
privilege and privileged people are more likely to succeed and not make you
look bad.

You probably shouldn't believe most of what you read in the news. For the
people making investment decisions based on this list I'm sure the same people
would have found some other way to waste their money.

~~~
xzel
This. If you know the right people and are doing something semi prestigious
then you can basically buy your way in, so to speak.

------
sjroot
It’s kind of mind-boggling that people keep themselves up at night over this.
Seems like it requires some level of egomania.

~~~
brtt
It absolutely does. An ex-boss of mine who tried for years got himself on one
of these lists and it took a lot of effort and resources just so he could
bring it up in every introduction call/meeting he made to clients.

------
kkhire
there's no question people on this list have accomplished cool things. but
it's lame that people are gaming their way into it, degrades the award imo

------
EAKDS
I'm the CEO of a tech-for-good startup. We employed a young woman as our new
'Head of Partnerships' last year, and she took credit for all our work to get
into Forbes 30 Under 30. They wrote about her being the developer and founder
of our product - in fact, she had only been hired for a few months and her
previous job was as a data analyst at a large consulting firm. Forbes Asia
ignored my emails and just changed the title! Incredibly incompetent and
unprofessional

------
GhettoMaestro
Alternative title: The 30 most insufferable douchebags to avoid.

~~~
brootstrap
I feel like based on my own life accomplishments i should be on the 30 for
under 30. Married, child, successfully living as an adult for a few years now.
THAT is a real accomplishment.

------
mkagenius
In India its worse. People have to apply themselves. How ridiculous is that --
imagine Einstein applying, hey I should get noble prize for this, this and
this.

~~~
gowld
It's the same with the US awards.

------
gist
From:
[https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019](https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019)

> annual list chronicling the brashest entrepreneurs across the United States
> and Canada

Implied of course that the list is arbitrary but even more ironic given it's
limited to a number that makes a good headline that is counter arbitrary (if
there is such a think..)

------
Buge
> “There are many franchises and temples of products and services that we
> offer,” said Matthew Hutchison, a Forbes spokesperson. “It is one of many in
> our constellation.”

Those are some interesting word choices. I wonder what "temples" means in this
context.

------
yaur
so much whitespace...
[https://imgur.com/a/6c4FPeL](https://imgur.com/a/6c4FPeL)

------
santojleo
After reading comments on this thread I realize there’s some young potential
founders following this. So I thought I’d offer my experience from 2018:

My background:

I spent 4 years building mailmyprescriptions.com into the lowest priced online
pharmacy before half a dozen clones. In 2018 we were the highest ranked
(trustpilot) and lowest priced. Read the reviews... literally saving lives and
increasing quality of life. Do you know what $1-2k a year in savings is to a
family with an income of $50-60k? We saved Americans over $10m last year.
That’s more than what congress has done on drug prices in years.

I bootstrapped the company, and eventually raised $m’s on my own from FO’s and
strategics - without a network (an achievement by itself) and this is when
healthtech wasn’t sexy.

I also did this while starting a family and eventually got massive burn out. I
left the company a few months ago.

Prior to that I bootstrapped in the ad space instead of going through college
and taking on the debt.

So to conclude: no network, no degree, bootstrapped disruptive health startup
while starting a family.

The nomination:

I got an email from them asking to fill out a survey and so I went through the
process. (You can also self nominate - see end of comment)

If they consider you then you fill out a 10-min survey and they exchange some
emails thereafter if you make the cut. There’s 3-4 rounds of cuts from what I
recall. There are an equal number of questions about what you actually do as
the “how popular are you” questions: who invested in you, how much, notable
board members, press coverage, etc.

I knew based on those questions it was unlikely I would get on the list going
into it.

I also gave pretty short answers ( I was more worried about >60 min hold times
because we had just gotten product market fit) and probably shot myself in the
foot.

Either way they emailed me and told me I didn’t make the last cut. I never
looked at the list, and this thread just prompted me:

Most of the people on the list are doing some really incredible stuff,
specifically actual scientists. Founders in under-serviced markets like
Africa. Etc.

But there is a webmd clone that somehow raised $9m.

And one person on the list is an investment associate at a notable VC. With no
notable investments.

If you look at each of these lists you’ll see the trend that if you have a
notable VC Investment, and/or work for a notable company, and/or people from
the same company keep getting on, then it becomes obvious that while there are
some serious outliers on these lists: Forbes still has to serve the corporate
interests and make sure some of their people are “on the list”.

I’ve been _trying_ to mentor some young founders during my sabbatical and a
few of them are convinced these lists will get them more business. They are
spending more time on self nominating through their network than just asking
for a check for the friends and family round!

They want to brag. It’s a problem with millennials and subsequent generations
on social media. It’s FOMO. It’s social media envy.

Let me tell you something: You WONT.

You will get one linkedin bump with a few hundred views.

The next day you will wake up and be the same person you were the day before.

If you think it will help you raise money... the VCs know the list is rigged,
they get 20-something associates on it every year, so what do they care?

They produce these lists every year with more and more categories - the value
of the list has been diluted to oblivion.

Who’s made the list? Theranos CEO. WeWork CEO.

Time is money. If you (italic)get(/italic) nominated, cool go for it. If not:
don’t waste your time.

Go get product market fit! Generate EBITA! Build something awesome!

~~~
tehlike
How can i reach you?

My email is hnusername@gmail

------
santojleo
After reading comments on this thread I realize there’s some young potential
founders following this. So I thought I’d offer my experience from 2018:

My background:

I spent 4 years building mailmyprescriptions.com into the lowest priced online
pharmacy before half a dozen clones. In 2018 we were the highest ranked
(trustpilot) and lowest priced. Read the reviews... literally saving lives and
increasing quality of life. Do you know what $1-2k a year in savings is to a
family with an income of $50-60k? We saved Americans over $10m last year.
That’s more than what congress has done on drug prices in years.

I bootstrapped the company, and eventually raised $m’s on my own from FO’s and
strategics - without a network (an achievement by itself) and this is when
healthtech wasn’t sexy.

I also did this while starting a family and eventually got massive burn out. I
left the company a few months ago.

Prior to that I bootstrapped in the ad space instead of going through college
and taking on the debt.

So to conclude: no network, no degree, bootstrapped disruptive health startup
while starting a family.

The nomination:

I got an email from them asking to fill out a survey and so I went through the
process. (You can also self nominate - see end of comment)

If they consider you then you fill out a 10-min survey and they exchange some
emails thereafter if you make the cut. There’s 3-4 rounds of cuts from what I
recall. There are an equal number of questions about what you actually do as
the “how popular are you” questions: who invested in you, how much, notable
board members, press coverage, etc.

I knew based on those questions it was unlikely I would get on the list going
into it.

I also gave pretty short answers ( I was more worried about >60 min hold times
because we had just gotten product market fit) and probably shot myself in the
foot.

Either way they emailed me and told me I didn’t make the last cut. I never
looked at the list, and this thread just prompted me:

Most of the people on the list are doing some really incredible stuff,
specifically actual scientists. Founders in under-serviced markets like
Africa. Etc.

But there is a webmd clone that somehow raised $9m.

And one person on the list is an investment associate at a notable VC. With no
notable investments.

If you look at each of these lists you’ll see the trend that if you have a
notable VC Investment, and/or work for a notable company, and/or people from
the same company keep getting on, then it becomes obvious that while there are
some serious outliers on these lists: Forbes still has to serve the corporate
interests and make sure some of their people are “on the list”.

I’ve been _trying_ to mentor some young founders during my sabbatical and a
few of them are convinced these lists will get them more business. They are
spending more time on self nominating through their network than just asking
for a check for the friends and family round!

They want to brag. It’s a problem with millennials and subsequent generations
on social media. It’s FOMO. It’s social media envy.

Let me tell you something: You WONT.

You will get one linkedin bump with a few hundred views.

The next day you will wake up and be the same person you were the day before.

If you think it will help you raise money... the VCs know the list is rigged,
they get 20-something associates on it every year, so what do they care?

They produce these lists every year with more and more categories - the value
of the list has been diluted to oblivion.

Who’s made the list? Theranos CEO. WeWork CEO.

Time is money. If you (italic)get(/italic) nominated, cool go for it. If not:
don’t waste your time.

------
wimgz
Non paywalled version anyone?

~~~
dang
They've unlocked the article for HN readers, and we've swapped in that URL
above, so it should work now.

------
hfksohfosn
working for someone on this list, they’re pretty cool. while i’ve been trying
to find my own footing, i can’t help but feel envious. i think the hustle is
warranted, but maybe it isn’t. is it all just publicity?

------
maerF0x0
IMO the insidious part is that it's both ageist and a relative (vs absolute)
competition.

Ageist because someone 31, 41, or 51 could achieve great things for humanity,
yet doesnt deserve our accolade?

And strange because if 200 find a way to revolutionize the lives of billions.
We still have to pick 30? Why not celebrate everyone who markedly improves the
lives of 10% of the planet or some other absolute measure?

~~~
_bxg1
> And strange because if 200 find a way to revolutionize the lives of
> billions. We still have to pick 30? Why not celebrate everyone who markedly
> improves the lives of 10% of the planet or some other absolute measure?

I mean, you could say this about anything. The Nobel Prize has limited slots.
Nobody's saying those are the only people on earth worth honoring.

I'd say the real problem is putting too great an emphasis on youth and hustle.
Who makes their magnum opus in their 20s? Why would you even _want_ to? Most
people's greatest accomplishments happen in their 30s and 40s, even 50s.
Setting up early burnout as something to aspire to feels pathological.

~~~
mLuby
You make a good point. Because most people don't do interesting things until
they're out of their 20s, it makes those who _do_ unusual and therefore
newsworthy.

But being newsworthy has (monetary) value so this list, which used to be a
metric, has become a target, and per Goodhart's Law is therefore no longer a
good metric.

I predict another such list will arise, make those chasing 30<30 look foolish,
and the cycle will begin anew.

~~~
_bxg1
> Because most people don't do interesting things until they're out of their
> 20s, it makes those who do unusual and therefore newsworthy.

But I'd say that the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks later is
probably better than the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks early. So in
that sense we're celebrating the wrong thing.

