HN

Comments (97)

• Menu

  seamossfet
  Some of these really don't make sense. The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird considering they actually have real users.Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not.It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
• Menu

  YossarianFrPrez
  Reactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps.The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1][1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
• Menu

  iddan
  The regular ones are okay. The watchlist is diabolical. Unvoted as soon as I saw the watchlist.
• Menu

  jedberg
  This is funny, because I know a bunch of 30 under 30s, and I've invested in a few. There is a strong overlap between 30 under 30 and YC founders.I consider myself a good judge of character, because not one of the one's I've invested in has committed fraud!
• Menu

  czhu12
  Would say, the 30 under 30 list has like 600 people, not 30. So the fraud rate is quite a bit lower than headlines of seemingly 2 / 30. Its more like 2 / 600, which is maybe the baseline fraud rate?
• oefrha
  > Risk Index> Mercor — 3x on 30u30Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.
• zephyrwhimsy
  The AI agent paradigm is promising but current implementations are fragile. The failure modes compound — each step in a chain has some probability of error, and multi-step chains amplify this exponentially.
• kelnos
  The "watchlist" made me a bit uncomfortable. I get that it's satire, but putting real people's names in a list of people you're (even jokingly) watching for fraud, and assigning a "risk factor" to them (even/especially if they acknowledge it's made up) borders on defamation in my book.
• testuser291
  Insightful site, I can see why it makes some aspirational people a bit uncomfortable. I'm sure they'll get over it though.
• asdev
  If you didn't know, 30 under 30 doesn't have a selection process and you can literally apply and game your way into being mentioned. I honestly love the site and the UI. Great job! Would be nice to have some kind of thing for YC founders as well
• zephyrwhimsy
  Markdown survived because it optimized for the right tradeoff: human readability with just enough structure for machine parsing.
• dsr_
  More useful for most people: is the company you are considering doing business with run by one of these fine upstanding folks?
• sixtyj
  Nice work.In section The 30u30 Risk Index there is some css bug, text is in long lines outside of boxes.
• tolerance
  Whatever period we're supposed to call the entropic stage where postmodernism and "today's modernism" intertwine, this is THAT.
• Menu

  brcmthrowaway
  The Nikola founder, and Anthony Levandowski for that matter (seems to have gone under the radar), have got to be the most egregious case of corruption and pay-for-play. It's so depressing that no one can do anything about it.
• cmiles8
  It’s amusing and bemusing how these lists have become so associated with grifters and fraudsters.It’s gotten to the point that legit folks are wanting to steer clear of them simply because of the negative stigma with being seen as an XuX grifter.
• rogerkirkness
  I've met several of the people on the first few pages on the watch list, and they are among the sketchiest Silicon Valley people I've met. The criteria are plausible.
• Menu

  dancerofaran
  the stupidity to this is that it takes a meme and treats it like factsyes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  dwedge
  How old is this site, because most of the reference links are dead links
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  NewsaHackO
  This seems extremely mean spirited.
• RagnarD
  Including "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)
• jwpapi
  Is the formula based on the actual probabilities. I’m pretty sure you could do that, but it’s not clear it it.
• moomoo11
  I wouldn’t work for a company where the founder/ceo was younger than 35 and had zero real world experience.
• AIorNot
  I'm all for the big names and ones that have proven issues and companies like Delve to be shamedBut Cursor? Why they are operating in a risky space on tech that is all new what ethical things did they do to warrent inclusion in this shame board?Lets not tarnish folks either -cancel culture is worrisome there
• ed_balls
  avoid people that need narcissistic supply at all cost.
• BenFranklin100
  I’ve been in the startup and scientific community for 25 years now and during that that time I’ve run across about two dozen 30 under 30s. Every single one with exception of two were douchebags.I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system.https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nomi...
• AIorNot
  We're Missing the biggest frauds of all time: https://www.whitehouse.gov/When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
• calebjang
  [dead]
• firekey_browser
  [dead]
• ryguz
  [dead]
• zephyrwhimsy
  [dead]
• cindyllm
  [dead]
• lokinork
  [dead]
• worik
  [dead]
• Menu

  lasky
  [flagged]
• Menu

  raincole
  [flagged]
• spullara
  percentage wise they have more billionaires than frauds on the list, at least so far.
• Menu

  paxys
  Forbes "30 under 30" actually has like 600 people a year in 20 categories, and that's just in the USA. Add in international lists and the number rises to well over 1000. Since 2011 there have probably been, what, 10-15 thousand total "honorees"? ~12 instances of fraud in total is probably significantly below the corporate average.And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
• Menu

  Lerc
  What is a person who makes a site like this thinking about when they do it?What is their motivation? What are they trying to achieve?
• Menu

  CobrastanJorji
  Seems like there should be an incarcerated stamp for people who were in jail for fraud but later got out, like Shkreli.