Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012 (forbes.com)
123 points by prayag on Dec 17, 2012 | hide | past | favorite | 87 comments



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!


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


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

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eeji45eegdf/kathryn-minshew-2...



Oops, yes, sorry guys.


Kathryn = Kate.


Thanks PG. I counted 29 names -- if there were only one more YC alum on the lists we would have 30 YC Forbes 30 Under 30.


What's Emmett, chopped liver?


Featured in Tech category is a YC reject :)


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.


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.


social-local-mobile apps are easy to comprehend.

Genuine innovation isn't always so.


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-...

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.


She was in the media category. For some people in that category being included in even a silly TV show is a desirable career move.


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.


No matter who they choose, somebody would disagree with the choice. Whereas you would prefer to see internet / bootstrapped personalities (and I would too!), somebody else would argue that pop acts are a much bigger influence among the general population.


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?


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)


Who do you think marketed lady gaga before she had dozens of handlers?


Very true, but doesn't that mean she belongs on the 30 under 30 list a few years ago, not 2012?


This is more of what I was getting at; back when she was first up-and-coming and becoming a clear contender. Not x amount of albums and globally sold-out shows later. And to the sibling comment's point, I do actually think she's less influential than she has been in the past.


Only if you believe she is less influential than she used to be.


Is she influential? I think she's Dale Bozzio: The Next Generation down to the fashion (since who the fuck remembers the 80s, right?) with a bit of Madonna and Gwen Stefani along the way. In another fifteen years we'll see someone else doing the same schtick and most people will not remember any previous iteration of it.


She seems to have pretty well dropped off the radar in the second half of 2012. I'm hard-pressed to think of any very culturally influential rising stars in female pop--the standouts seem to be on flat or downward trajectories.


Forbes is a joke and so are popular media publications when they attempt to discuss the "under 30" crowd. Generalize an entire demographic into only a couple of big trends. No thanks.


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)


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.


how many successful co-founders

If you want to get into metrics, it'd help to define what you would consider successful. I'd think you'd do a disservice by conducting such a study.


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.


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


> 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

Yeah, somehow even I, a guy who has never been to the Staets, could figure that out only by reading the "Arts" section. Almost all of the people there were New-York-based or from around the area, it's like 2010s New York it's like Paris from 1920s full of bright artists and what have you, which I get the impression it's not true. Too bad for the arts, a pretty sweet deal for people making money out of it.


No, but most of these founders are from an incubator like TechStars or YC. The lists are usually created by reaching out to a few key people and asking for recommendations.


Also true of many awards for companies, like "[$someMagazine]'s 10 Top Companies in Biotechnology". There are even cases where companies have to pay to be considered for such awards. I think a lot of people know that too but the awards are still considered reasonably prestigious.


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.


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


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!


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).


that disclosure sounds like bragging, sorry


And what's wrong with that?

People can't be happy with their accomplishments?


Nobody said he shouldn't be happy. The point was that bragging about them in public (as opposed to around friends or family) is unbecoming.


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.


YC dominates the list :)


Telling quote:

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


Congratulations to Parisa!

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


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.


Even Forbes outsources their vetting to YC ;)


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


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


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


The ones named to the lists (and their family/friends) do ;)


Yes.


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!


Congrats to Darian! Radius is doing some amazing things!


So. Much. Clicking. Around.


Props to the FiveStar guys.


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


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


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


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.


Oh, I think they make lists of "young people who did impressive shit" in part because most lists of "people who did impressive shit" are pretty well dominated by older people. It's a little like making lists of "women who are important for some fucking reason or other", which is lefthanded admission that general lists of "people who are important for some fucking reason or other" are extremely male dominated.

-- Observation by a 47yo female


"Some magazine made a list somewhere"

Lists like this for magazines and are obviously a well thought out strategy to build circulation. This year the Forbes list has even been expanded into more categories so more people can have a feather in their cap. Press releases will be issued and every small town newspaper in america repeats the info about how some person made the list in Forbes. And here on Hacker News (note pg comment on this thread with congratulations confirming the authority and importance of all of this) as well as blogs and other news site that need some fresh material.

The one question that isn't answered anywhere, that I can find, is who are the "panel of expert judges" that helped the Forbes people with the choices? That's certainly relevant.


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?


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.


From OP's comment: It's because age obsessions stem from this "cool list" narcissistic nonsense.


Do you consider these lists interesting? Are you happy when you see YC names in this article?


Sure. I learned a bunch of things I didn't know. I had no idea Spotify's valuation was so high, for example, and I didn't know people were using location in cryptography.

And sure, I'm happy to see YC alumni in the list. It's nice for them to get some recognition.


There are a lot of successful people under 30. Especially when you include things like Writer, Actor, Athletes, and people who have taken seed funding, but are not yet profitable.

What I thought was interesting was how much overlap there was with the category's. (Art & Style, Education, Energy, Finance, Food & Wine, Games & Apps, Hollywood, Law & Policy, Marketing & Advertising, Media, Music, Science & Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurs, Sports, Tech) It was like they created did some research for interesting people and then created new category's after the fact. But, that may also relate to who was willing to be on there list.


the fawning? it's the end of the year and forbes came out with a list recognizing people of their accomplishments. it seems like many people in this thread know some of these people and wanted to congratulate them. what's wrong with that?


For the most part, it's a list of some pretty impressive young people doing some pretty impressive things. You don't have to shit all over it in this thread because you're butthurt.


Not "butthurt". (People still use that phrase?) Not even in a startup, so out of contention anyway.

My point is that we should be excited about those impressive things, not some list that was compiled.


List shows us those impressive thing?


I don't understand.

The merits of hating / supporting a magazine is one thing. However achieving something of note before thirty is hardly an easy thing and not really something I'd criticize just to criticize. If you don't take support from your peers, or admire their success I don't really see what you yourself are working towards.

Also, by commentating on the general state of HN instead of reading the article, you are not in fact improving the quality of conversation found here.


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?


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


Mostly kids of rich fucks... go figure.


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.


"this is a significant accomplishment for these people"

What is the accomplishment in your mind? What they did? Or?

Because it seems like you are saying the fact that they were picked for a list by (let me repeat myself here) a panel of unnamed expert judges is an accomplishment?


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!


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.


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.


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.


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


Actually, the upper-half of the IQ distribution is log-normal when ratio IQs are measured. Adult deviation IQs are percentile rankings coerced into a Gaussian distribution (which is why measuring adult IQs above 145 is hard: small samples). This suggests that the "true" IQ is the log-normal distribution, which has support only on (0, infinity).


Your entire comment sounds as something like this "if you're not noteworthy because of something it's your fault". Quite rude.

I know plenty of immigrant's children in the US that are not "successful" and they tried hard to find a spot under the Sun and failed, they're not poor but are not much better than their parents, who are not rich either, things happened, sometimes that were under their direct control, some of them now basically blame themselves for that and not being rich, although this is something that affects the vast majority of middle class Americans that I knew.


of course they had luck, but if all they had was luck, they probably wouldnt be on the list.

stop complaining about the hand you were dealt and make your own luck.


Sure, you have to buy a ticket to win the lottery. But it changes nothing about still being a lottery.


Your sociological insight is spot-on (few people are born into VC connections) but your delivery sucks. Hate the game, not the player.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: