One of the most valuable things he brings to the problem is a certain amount of attitude:

I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person's life-- then multiply that by millions. Yet this was the most boring panel I've ever been on-- ever. So boring even I couldn't bear it.

I want to touch on apathy.

That's so true. When I ran for Student Body President at 18, people said I couldn't do it. Then, when I did become Student Body President at 19 (it was a big two-year school my parents made me attend), everybody else in Student Government said there would be too much apathy in the student body to have a student-run newspaper. Also, students said a chess club wouldn't happen. Finally, administration said a smoking policy could not happen. Yet, not only did they happen, but all of those things exist 5 years later, each in even bigger form.

The newspaper is now in color and part of a class. The chess club is now run by the math advisor who loves doing it and there have been chess boards in his office and the engineering lab for the past 5 years, last I heard. And, the smoking policy is in the student handbook the exact way I planned it out and wrote it, so students wouldn't have to walk through smoky entrances.

Then, people said I couldn't get a congressional nomination to the Naval Academy because it is very difficult to do so. But I did, twice, and worked my butt off to succeed in the physical aptitude tests, and raised my SAT from 1170 to 1400, and started selling shareware at 20, though I was not appointed by the school itself; but with the cheating and rape scandals at that school over the past few years, I think their student body and alumni must also upset be upset about the disconnect between who they say they want and who they take. So I just continued to create software since then.

Compared to that, one just has to create some kind of a web application that helps people do something. You don't have to attend meetings, get signatures, drive for hours across the state, run for election, or wait for unions to respond in some cases. You could have a working prototype in one day.

Everybody tries to compare themselves to facebook or youtube or google, and they never realize that each of those was very simple in the beginning and had a purpose since day one.

The fact is that "apathy" is actually a good thing for those who create. It means once you do create something, people are going to be reluctant to switch away from it. So, apathy is actually a benefit to those who create things.

The only people who bring up apathy are those who weren't going to create something, anyway.

In other words, the people who pretend they are creators but say "there is no market" even though such a tool or idea would definitely benefit certain people--those people are not creators, they are talkers. The creators realize that apathy actually works with them, not against them, since whoever starts using their tool (if it benefits them in any way) will keep using it.

On a similar note, if somebody says something can't happen or won't happen, then you know they're just lazy and are reflecting their experiences on you, but not considering your own drive and motivation. Most everybody who says you can or can't do something, shares experiences based on their own life, that they can't even remember clearly, and in only a 2 minute conversation.

Apathy towards change is also why you have to read diverse opinions every day on many different subjects, just to find the few people whose stuff makes sense.

Most people write the best stuff before they are famous, and everything since is just garbage. So, apathy works to those people's advantage, but not necessarily to others.

If you started reading Steve Pavlina today, you would think of him as some kind of a nut job who tries to pimp as many affiliate programs to his readers as possible. If you learn about Paul Graham today, you will think of him as some rich dot com millionaire-turned-investor making kids work 60 hour weeks during the summer, as well as telling kids to drop out of school so they try to start businesses with his money. Both of those are true, because at some point, everybody deserves to make money, but if you look back, you can see it's their articles from many years ago that truly defined them, and that's the stuff you want to be reading.

This means that you have to not only find the companies and people who are reputable, but figure out WHY they became reputable. Don't look at facebook or myspace or PG right now; look back at what their options were, and what they did. That's the only thing that matters. Otherwise, you're laughing at Jerry Seinfeld or whoever it is because you're used to their delivery style.

To famous creators -- comedians, web apps, investors--apathy is great and they deserve it. But you have to realize it's a good thing that exists, not a bad thing. Otherwise, you wouldn't have any benefits either, as people would jump from your web app to another, or a comedian would be forgotten if he didn't do standup for one month.

YOU want to be the most agile developer ever, always helping people the fastest way you can, always researching the best ways to help people. But most users will stay with a tool that already helps them--so move on to something else.

So, don't hate apathy, and ignore those who bring it up as an excuse to avoid creating something. YES, apathy exists, but it benefits those who create, not those who think.

So, the next time somebody wants to create a Magazine, people will say, we already have a newspaper. Don't bother trying, because the school will never sponsor both. Let's create a Risk Club. No way, they already sponsor Chess, so let's not bother trying.

That's right, people will whine about the current state of affairs without realizing it's up to them to continue the improvement along, and without making an attempt themselves. That means that apathy carries your current creations way beyond any date you can imagine. The harder it is to start something, the longer it will fly, it seems. So, the more "apathy" there is towards helping people do a certain thing, the more likely whatever you create will fly longer. It will be weird to come back in 20 years and hear that those three things either exist in the same form or are even greater.

Plus, remember--even though you proved those people wrong, you are now in a different place, while the nay-sayers who are afraid to try to make a difference are still there. Therefore, they are slowing down whoever else is now there trying to make a change, therefore increasing the length of time your ideas continue to exist.

Therefore, apathy is NOT a deterrent to success, only YOU are. Because whether people TALK agreement or TALK disagreement, only YOU can make the change and do it. Whether or not somebody likes your idea or not, you're the one who has to create it, so you're the only criteria in whether it happens or not.

Actually, he wanted to tell everyone they have released fogbugz 6 beta, wasn't that obvious? It is good story anyway.

Too bad Joel stopped blogging about software... Looking at this last XX posts I don't see anything about software.

Joel is getting old... :-)

This article reads like he really, really wanted to tell everyone the story about finding the rogue alarm clock at his neighbor's apartment, but didn't have a good reason to publish it, so he added a couple paragraphs at the end about how being anal makes a person good at finding bugs. It did not flow together well.

Kawasaki gets to be stupid for more than 15 minutes.

I hope he's enjoying making a fool out of himself while mocking everyone who's working on web companies.

It's an act that's going to wear thin, fast.

"The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity."

Clearly, the author needs help writing parables that communicate a point with emphasis!

The point was the irony of the IT guys arguing about cronyism in the movie while negotiating a deal that came about because the investor knows the founder's father.

The investor suddenly realized this and wondered whether he really was putting the best people on the deal or whether the poeple he "trusted" would let him down, so he asks his EA to keep an eye on them.

But are all genes equal? Humans and chimps are 98.5% similar, but whatever's in that 1.5% seems to make a big difference.

far33d, why would this be different. The same sensory pathways are initiated regardless of the stimulus. Repeated positive stimuli generate the feeling of addiction.

The same pleasures can be had while coding.

I think young entrepreneurial types, such as those who prowl this site, need to read and re-read this article. Money, materialism and MTV all pail in comparison to the world's worst problems.

Some Lisp coders have mentioned brain orgasms when discovering something great about the language.

I was bouncing around for a few hours when I removed 20 lines of Python and replaced it with one line

Oh, I thought the warning was because of this: http://www.raydeck.com/2006/10/paul-graham-is-hurting-the-children/

I don't understand. Can someone explain?