Forbes built hall of shame for the questionable people on its 30 Under 30 lists

Interesting, never thought about it from that angle.

Not only that, they also have less to lose so are able to take more chances, and work more hours to achieve their goals. Which gives the possibility of producing a unicorn. Older people will be more conservative, taking fewer risks, so probably less likely to hit that hyper-mega valuation.

i.e. we can hustle the noobs

and the kids will work like dogs because they haven't been in the industry long enough to know what is normal

> Project Veritas is an American far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010. The group produces deceptively edited videos of its undercover operations, which use secret recordings in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.Project Veritas also uses entrapment to generate bad publicity for its targets, and has propagated disinformation and conspiracy theories in its videos and operations.

> In 2009, Project Veritas associates published misleading videos that depicted ACORN employees providing advice on concealing illegal activity, causing ACORN to shut down after losing funding; the Attorney General of California cleared ACORN of wrongdoing in 2010, and the associates paid a total of $150,000 in settlements to an ACORN employee who sued for defamation. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned in 2013 after Project Veritas released a deceptively edited video portraying another NPR executive making controversial comments about the Tea Party movement and NPR's federal funding. Project Veritas unsuccessfully attempted to mislead The Washington Post into publishing false information about the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations in 2017; the Post won a Pulitzer Prize after uncovering the operation.

> The organization's board fired O'Keefe in February 2023 for what it said was financial malfeasance with donor money.

source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

Do you think it makes a difference if the person is bad person but their work contributes meaningfully to their field vs if the person is affable but their work is geared towards reducing the signal to noise ratio of other channels of communication?

That's only applied to pedophile rapists like Roman Polanski and not the most dangerous element of our society, people who vote for the wrong party.

Besides, if you get hired to work on a Polanski film, free travel outside the US! Why bother working for the pedophile rapists already in LA?

This is certainly a topic of debate (obviously) and not settled within, as far as I can tell, any "section" of society.

Anyway, even assume you buy into that, it's usually unidirectional: a person's personal infractions don't necessarily have to destroy one's appreciation for their artwork.

The O'Keefe case (not that I necessarily do or do not agree with it) is the reverse: his work reflects poorly on his character. This directional flow, as far as I can tell, is not really hotly debated. People don't really debate "does engaging in bad behavior make you a bad person?" they just debate whether specific behavior is bad or not. Totally different from the art/artist debate.

I mean that may be, but the dude also cranked the price of insulin for no reason beyond he could and it would make him richer. So like, good luck finding some sympathetic ears for him.

It's not that really. At least not the whole of it. It was just easy to tie him as a face to the kind of corporate entities that people hate. Also his position was much more vulnerable than other pharma executives who can afford to pay armies of PR teams, etc.

He has a need for attention and a poor sense of self-preservation -- sort of like weev but without being a massive racist.

> All pharma companies price gouge.

Perhaps, but only Shkreli decided to 10× his drug prices overnight. Or, as one person put it, "[Shkreli] is to a research-based company like a loan shark to a legitimate bank"