Each of those sources were written after she was chosen as a 30-under-30 so it doesn't really answer the question of what made Forbes choose her.
You have to admit that it is kind of interesting that the list are pretty much all founders or people who have invented something incredible. Her bio on Forbes's article lists her as a "rising star"[1]. Founder, founder, founder, founder, rising-star, founder, founder, founder. Am I sexist for pointing this out?
I agree with you based on the data you're giving. It would seem like a PC stunt to add her to the same list as those people. I'm also saying this as a gripe at Forbes rather than critiquing her work. Just seems like a different category.
You have to admit that it is kind of interesting that the list are pretty much all founders or people who have invented something incredible. Her bio on Forbes's article lists her as a "rising star"[1]. Founder, founder, founder, founder, rising-star, founder, founder, founder. Am I sexist for pointing this out?
[1] http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2014/30-under-30/techno...