Hacker News Reader

Comment by zachlatta | Hacker News Reader

As someone on this list, there’s an open secret that the way to get on is to get referrals from existing people and link to 1-2 articles about you. It’s not merit based and there is no rigorous evaluation.

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.

View on HN

I have an old friend (though we haven't talked in about a decade) who was on the list back in 2018 under the marketing and advertising category. From what I see him posting on LinkedIn, 90%+ of his posts are generic empty platitudes about how to be successful, the same sort that you would see from a lot of people that seem to be famous for being rich or famous for being famous. As far as I can tell his company is legit, but most of the people who end up on that list seem to fit a certain "slick salesman" persona regardless of the actual merits of their company, so it's not surprising that a good number of scammers make it on as well.

I knew a guy that came to work one day and found out that he had been named best cfo of the year from a local organization, out of the blue. He was sent a plaque and was invited to a dinner in his honor. It turns out that he worked for a very large company and the organization was trying to score some points with the company. Who better than the man that handled the finances?

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 read as cynical at all to me.

It is how almost the entire business award industry works. Non-profits do it all the time.

Very interesting, yes, they were a non-profit.

Or give Forbes money by advertising, attending their events, sponsoring events etc.

30,000 under 30-ish

Can you get me on the list? Also how strict is the age requirement

What if our age is divisible by 30? Still good, right?

I, too, am hoping to make Forbes' 90 Exactly At 90 list some day.

Buffett and Munger are both over 90. There must be some lifestyle thing that's kept them both alive and active this long.

Being able to afford the best doctors, nutritionists, and personal trainers, without waiting, certainly doesn’t hurt.

I'm not rich enough to know, but I'm not sure if this is a thing.

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 don't think they were suggesting it was good lifestyle/eating via being able to afford a good doctor for that advice - but rather check-ups and early diagnoses. You could run a large battery of tests every x weeks if you wanted, if you were unsure about a mole you could skip the GP and have a top oncologist review it immediately, etc.

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.

Counterpoint: if not all doctors are equal, and better doctors charge more, having more money makes you able to afford better doctors. If your doctor is 10% better at detecting cancer for example, that may translate to a longer life.

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.

Even something as simple as having a private chef prep all your meals - someone who can actually make healthy taste good.

I may be completely wrong but having a lot of money, especially if you earned it by conventional definitions, might intrinsically motivate you to take better care of your health to live longer and enjoy your achievements. Kinda like an article I read that said poor people have unhealthy diets in some part due to the temporary relief from daily stresses offered by high sugar fatty foods might be more valuable to them than saving up money and health for a life that is pretty much going nowhere.

EDIT: It was a passage from a book called Hired by James Bloodworth

Every n under n list is just PR bullshit.

The opportunity you gained was an opportunity that someone lost.

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

There's just no such thing as an amazing person. All people are of equal worth. It's a terrible concept.

To pick two highly disparate people, in your calculus 1 x Ghandi is equal to 1 x Adolf Hitler.

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. :-)

> Ghandi had many days when he got out of the wrong side of the bed and wasn't amazing

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.

My understanding is that Hitler lost and I don't agree with the industrialized killing machine he enabled or deliberately pursued.

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.

Difference between Hitler and Churchil was not much. One killed millions of Jews and another killed millions of Hindus.

Who won the war decided their legacy.

Power by any means is the deciding factor

Both were responsible for very bad things, but the difference between them is immense.

I feel like you're insinuating something absurd here, but I just can't identify the point you're trying to make.

Gandhi was a racist early on but throughout his life he continually grew as a person.

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 of equal worth in terms of how society should by default interact with them, in terms of how the government should respect and protect their rights, etc.

All people are not equally talented. I'm not of equal worth to Messi in soccer, Brad Pitt in appearance, and on and on.

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com