Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#61

Post by hazov »

HorizonXP wrote: post #49
sprash wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#62

Post by hazov »

Domenic_S wrote: post #60
sprash wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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 slow…

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

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#63

Post by bcoates »

mnicole wrote: post #4
sixQuarks wrote: post #3

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.

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 sh…

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?

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#65

Post by michaelochurch »

Domenic_S wrote: post #60
sprash wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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 slow…

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).

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#67

Post by m0th87 »

pg wrote: post #24
pg wrote: post #2

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...

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#68

Post by pdog »

michaelochurch wrote: post #44

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 lik…

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.

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#69

Post by michaelochurch »

pdog wrote: post #68
michaelochurch wrote: post #44

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 lik…

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.

Re: Forbes 30 under 30 in 2012

#70

Post by 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?

Post reply on HN