[runesoerensen]

I can't say I'm surprised to see this as the top comment, but I think it's sad that you (and apparently many other upvoters) don't think 30 year olds can offer valuable advice on life.

It's also wrong as proven by history. Many writers have produced some of their best works at the same age. One example is Kirkegaard who wrote "Fear and Trembling"[1] at age 30.

If you think that Sam's advice is narrowminded or bad as a result of his age you can address that in your comment. That would add value to the discussion -- it currently does no such thing.

Go for the ball not the man.

[1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling)

[untog]

I think there's a difference between providing everyday life advice and writing an influential philosophical work.

For example, having a family. I have no idea if Sam has children, but many 30 year olds (like myself) do not, so I don't consider myself able to give life advice to anyone who does, because their life and my life are dramatically different.

In general, I think, it's not that 30 year olds can't give life advice. It's that I'd bet 60 year olds can give considerably better life advice. When "the days are long but the decades are short", it's worth considering that the author has only spent one of the latter in the work force.

[runesoerensen]

That probably just means that a lot of advice doesn't apply to everyone at all stages of life. Someone with kids could write a similar list with advice that would be good for some and bad for others.

I bet a lot of parents, in good faith, give their children bad advice. For instance, "get a good education so you have something to fall back on". That may be good advice for some - probably even the majority of people. For others it will be terrible advice.

Knowing the background and credentials of an author (age, experience, works, kids/no kids etc) can be valuable and guide the reader. It may help identify whether the advice is relevant and applicable to him/her, but it shouldn't discredit or disqualify the author or work in itself.

In this case, Sam just chose to share the answer he gave a friend who most likely will find it more valuable than someone who is living an entirely different life. He didn't say that it applies to everyone, and I'm also certain that he knows that he will learn more life lessons. Nothing is final and I'd certainly expect to see different advice when he turns 40.

The fact that we continue to learn throughout life is not a reason for not sharing what we've learned so far, particularly if we believe others can benefit from it.

[AceJohnny2]

> It's also wrong as proven by history. Many writers have produced some of their best works at the same age. One example is Kirkegaard who wrote "Fear and Trembling"[1] at age 30.

The field of mathematics are rife with young contributors. Two of my favourite examples are Evariste Galois (invented galois theory, died at 20 in a duel), and one Isaac Newton. The latter is wonderfully told by Niel DeGrasse Tyson: https://youtu.be/danYFxGnFxQ (you may recognize a meme created from the end of that video).

[falcolas]

And there are many more (including folks like Einstein and others) who hit their stride somewhat later in life.

Even the ones who hit it early didn't magically get worse after they hit 30. :)

[runesoerensen]

I don't think this is accurate either -- some people do peak early in life. I can't think of good philosopher examples right now, but there are a couple of examples and possible causes of the phenomenon in this article [1].

That being said it may very well be particularly people who deal with very fundamental problems, such as philosophers, often get better with age.

In any case it's probably best to refrain from making general statements about people based solely on age.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/from-mozart-to...

[kungfooey]

Clarification: I'm not saying that no 30 year old can offer sage advice. I don't think Altman is on the same level as Kirkegaard here. As others have pointed out, the list is not terribly revolutionary.

It simply struck me as odd that this (not particularly revelatory list) could be passed off as worthy of note. What, other than his work with YC, makes Sam's musings worthy of our time?

[snowwrestler]

> What, other than his work with YC, makes Sam's musings worthy of our time?

Nothing, really. Not to take anything away from Sam Altman, but if he were still the CEO of Loopt, I don't think his every blog post would go to #1 on HN.

But, that's part of the deal here. YC-related stuff gets voted up.

[waterlesscloud]

There's nothing wrong with the list.

It's not like the earlier pg essays that literally changed the ways I think about a lot of things.

It's just a list of largely common platitudes. Nothing wrong with that in itself, though. Many of them are worth reiterating from time to time.

[kungfooey]

> There's nothing wrong with the list.

Pretty high bar you have for lists there!