Hacker News Reader

Comment by philaquilina | Hacker News Reader

I think you are thinking of "change the world" in the "topple bad governments, empower the meek, help make this world a utopia" type of way. Evernote is changing the world.

If you make 30 million people's lives just a tad bit easier, then yes, you've changed the world. If you've caused other companies to take note and copy your business strategy/idea and THEY make people's lives easier, then yes you've changed the world.

Yes, he's rich, but I think he's saying that was a side effect of purer motivations. If you're in it to be rich, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. If you're in it create an amazing product and be impactful on a stranger's life, then you're in it for the right reasons.

Just my take. Could be wrong.

View on HN

"side effect of purer motivations. If you're in it to be rich, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. If you're in it create an amazing product and be impactful on a stranger's life, then you're in it for the right reasons"

"Right reasons". The judgmental-nis of that is what I don't like.

Why do people comment on HN? One reason that I do is because of the good feeling that I get from passing along what I know. I've always liked to teach others what I know online and also offline. Wrapped into that though is the acknowledgement from others that they like what I've said that ends up in the "mental" bank and makes me feel good.

I don't think you can have one without the other. And is there really anything wrong with doing for others even if solely for the "wrong" reason which would be the deposit into the mental bank?

If you're in it to be rich, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.

Bullshit! Altruism doesn't involve calculating how much equity to give employees while unsteadily watching your potential valuation numbers.

If you're in it create an amazing product and be impactful on a stranger's life, then you're in it for the right reasons.

That's called open-source, and you don't charge for it.

Actually, I think a lot of folks find that to have an impact, you often have to charge for it. Somebody's gotta keep the lights on, and there's a weird tic of human psychology where people associate cost with value. Many an entrepreneur has discovered you can't give it way, yet the more you charge, the more people buy.

In 2009 I ran out of cash after what I'd describe as a stab at changing the world using a naive & altruistic approach. Now I make money, which is way better :)

I'm not saying you can't do well by doing good. I'm just saying that people need to admit they are in business to succeed in business rather than for an altruistic cause. There's a whole sector of benefit-corps, cooperatives, and chartered social enterprises for altruistic causes.

If you are doing well by exploiting people, you shouldn't expect any sort of respect. There are all sorts of charlatans who sell awful damaging products who do well financially. Some more obvious examples are gambling and fake medical products like those holographic armbands or homeopathy.

If your end goal is to make money for yourself at all costs, don't expect any sort of respect or good people to work with.

"Change" has a large semantic field. For example, there's the word "change," and then there's the rallying cry: change. When regular folk talk about changing the world, they're talking about something fundamentally different from what you're talking about.

(Why do so many HN-type entrepreneurs want to make "change the world" apply to toy apps that really do nothing of the kind? There's no reason to feel insecure about building toy apps, so no reason to reframe them as being world-changing, either.)

> If you make 30 million people's lives just a tad bit easier, then yes, you've changed the world.

By that reasoning, if I kick a rock on the street and it shifts 10 feet to the left, I've changed the world too.

EDIT: more analogies

* Bic pens have changed the world

* Toilet paper has changed the world

* Shoes have changed the world

Kicking a rock on the street is different than the other examples you gave in that the directly measured impact is minimal.

It is possible that it could cause major change (in a butterfly effect kind of way), but usually it would be hard to measure and predict.

But if you kick a rock and a few days later that rock ends up causing an accident of an "important" person you did in fact "change the world" by kicking that rock.

IMO, the other things that you mentioned have changed the world.

Dude, if I invented toilet paper or shoes, I would be pretty fuckin' proud.

Just saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com