Forbes mocked as another '30 Under 30' honoree accused of fraud
nypost.com
nypost.com
Folks should be under no assumptions that some rigorous process goes into making up these lists. Much/most of getting on a list is the result of heavy targeted promotional efforts by folks or “their team” to get on the list hence the oddly high concentration of fraudsters and shysters. People are very serious these days when they say they’d triple check someone just because they appeared on one of these lists given the reputation for the above.
It’s also important to note that every year hundreds of people are put on Forbes 30 Under 30. They have categories like 30 Under 30 for Education, 30 Under 30 for Music, 30 Under 30 for Enterprise Software, and many many more. It’s a lot more than 30 people.
Since there are so many people, there are many amazing people and inevitably scammers too.
I am appreciative of the list because it helped some people take me more seriously as a young person who was trying to do something meaningful in the world, but who didn’t finish high school and wasn’t from a high net worth background.
If you have a serious, unknown disease, throwing money at the problem to find a diagnosis could work. In general though, studies on healthy habits seem to be all over the place, and recommendations almost all turn into "eat food, not too much, mostly plants," (I'll add minimally processed), and exercise (strength and endurance). 95% of that is execution that's on you, even with the best doctors and personal trainers.
The other thing studies call out is not having too much stress and the importance of social connection. High-level wealth can work against those.
I expect though that that sort of money enables existing hypochondriacs (in the casual sense) like that, but that most billionaires etc. are no more inclined to have unnecessary tests from unnecessarily specialised doctors than the rest of us.
My intuition tells me that at a personal level (instead of statistical on a population) it's even more important to avoid things that can cause an early death, because at the statistical level it's "compensated" by people to which it will never happen, but not at the individual.
Nutrition and fitness are very important to delay aging, which will kill you in the end, and improve your chances at surviving "death chance event" like getting a cancer. But having top professionals help you face these events (cancer, depression, car accidents (by means of having a better car, the help is indirect but still comes from money)) can have a huge and maybe even bigger impact.
As for the stress and social connections, I'm not sure I agree. At an equal amount of stress/social connections, someone with high wealth will have most/all of the time more options compared to someone with low stress. Sure some people might be putting pressure on themselves, but there is a big difference between internal/external expectations and having to work a high stress job to afford food.
EDIT: It was a passage from a book called Hired by James Bloodworth
Now I'm pretty sure both were complex people both smaller and larger than the imprint they have on history: pretty sure Ghandi had many days when he got out of the wrong side of the bed and wasn't amazing, and probably even Hitler did some laudable stuff (history is silent on whether he ever, eg, helped an old lady across the street or similar small moments of useful behavior that most of find ourselves doing).
Anyway, I definitely know an amazing person; and I'm married to them. :-)
Judged by modern standards, at least. Gandhi is reputed to have been a racist, misogynist, and possibly a pedophile.
> probably even Hitler did some laudable stuff
As I understand it, Adolf was kind to his dogs.
...
And Mother Theresa wasn't so awesome, either.
People are complex. Narratives and mythologies are propagated to serve a purpose.
I am capable of seeing how my understanding would be different under a different regime, where it would be merely edgy for me to evaluate the constitutional merits of an event that was merely a footnote about a gap in the census population between 1939 and 1945 and beyond.
Such is life.
Who won the war decided their legacy.
Power by any means is the deciding factor
His non standard sex activities are known only because he himself shared all about his life with everyone. And he stopped when people pointed it out.
Gandhi by standards of his days was probably one of the least misogynistic leaders.
Lots of heroes aren’t worth worshipping. But let’s not throw the baby with the bath water.
All people are not equally talented. I'm not of equal worth to Messi in soccer, Brad Pitt in appearance, and on and on.
While you may have deserved it (and I sincerely think you do as you were forthcoming enough to write this) you have to admit such non meritocratic system with its perceived legitimacy is more harmful than valuable
This made me wonder if these magazines are just trying to score points with people that can mean future business for them. Or access to them if they make it big.
Is this too sinical on my part?
It doesn't help that they're 51% owned by a HongKong based company (since 2013) and have been accused by WSJ about editorial meddling in stories about China.
At this point they're just parasitising the memory of the Forbes family. Hope it doesn't last too long.
Given the incident rate, maybe there's a more profound shift in our society. I hate the term post-truth, but maybe financiers are either more gullible, or more willing to look the other way? Nah, it's just the cheap money and the end of it will fix this up in a jiffy.
To say that she's a miserable ass of a charlatan who made my work life (and pretty much anyone she's encountered) hell, this comment jives.
By definition, you can't be a celebrated avant-gardiste. The people who will be lauded as precursors in the future are necessarily out of sync with what is fashionable today.
That's why list aimed at celebrating promising people are doomed to be wrong more often than not. Amusingly, it also means that extremely fashionable people are less likely to be highly remembered in the far future than people marginally famous.
I'm not sure it adds much information that's not already covered by the article, but it is funny.
I made no attempt to get on the list and didn’t even find out I was on the shortlist until I received a questionnaire asking for more information. Filled it out while commuting to work and forgot about it.
Didn’t hear back from Forbes at any point and only found out I made it when someone messaged me to congratulate me the day it was published.
Still don’t know who nominated me. Never bothered to ask.
Similar to another commenter, it has been useful given I have a degree from a relatively unknown University in Australia. Maybe it’ll be more counterproductive now? Who knows…
I never had to send HS transcripts because I started out at community college after the army but for the couple other times I did they were pretty strict on what they would accept.
Humbolt State, some random private school that’s probably bankrupt now and Arizona State University (who decided I wasn’t a resident so I couldn’t take any classes there) were all this way.
Again I’m sure there is value to be had at many universities, I just don’t believe most students care anymore.
Yes, I have never been particularly impressed by any of the 30u30 I've met in real life, either.
In all seriousness, I was alluding to the likely way that people get on these lists. Success doesn't necessarily mean being a great technical person, it means knowing exactly where, when and how to grease the wheels.
In life, being a "grifter" is often what it takes to be successful. It's a different kind of hard work. Not everyone really understands it, I wouldn't discount it.