Back in 2005, Paul Graham of YCombinator wrote “Why Smart People Have Dumb Ideas” in the midst of approving applicants for the first YCombinator class. Nearly a decade later, his thoughts are even more relevant. Graham bemoans applicants with startup ideas that just seem “cool,” but aren’t anything that will get customers—business ideas that don’t solve problems.

Reading the Wall Street Journal for a week should give anyone ideas for two or three new startups. The articles are full of descriptions of problems that need to be solved. But most of the applicants don’t seem to have looked far for ideas.

Lack of imagination is a problem in every space. But, I don’t want to turn out another angry screed against seemingly frivolous startups that exist just to get bought out. Paul’s essay gave me something else to think about: whether we should focus so much energy into the startup model to solve real problems in the first place—especially technology startups.

Despite what some like to think, not every problem has a technological solution, at least no exclusively technological. Consider the scope at which many startups and solo entrepreneurs work. A smartphone app can tell you how much CO₂ you put out on your drive to work. It won’t get high-speed commuter rail in walking distance of home. Changing the transportation infrastructure of the country into something environmentally friendly takes cooperation and sacrifice. It takes government, not just private enterprise. It’s part of why Elon Musk’s Hyperloop might never get off the ground. [1]

Such thinking is anathema to Silicon Valley ideals of individualism, where “sharing” is something you do as a side hustle on Lyft or AirBNB. Compare building out high-speed rail with Google’s self-driving car. The Google Car is the Silicon Valley ideal: individual and asocial. It makes a great demo, but it’s far from a solution to real transporation and environmental issues. Cars For Trees, the carpooling app by Leo Grand, the homeless coder, has the potential to change behavior, but it’s a hack over existing infrastructure, not a change.

The startup model fails at solving problems on a large scope for one reason: money. From the moment a startup gets its first round of seed funding, the pressure is on for it to grow, and either start profiting, or get the attention of a larger company for an acquisition. Only then does the VC get a return on their investment. To go back to Paul Graham:

Most of the groups applying have not stopped to ask: of all the things we could do, is this the one with the best chance of making money?

Paul’s job, the job of any Venture Capitalist, is to make money. It’s why the VC’s investors chose to invest with them: the promise of a lucrative return. By any measure, Paul is doing his job when selecting companies on the basis of if they’ll succeed and profit. The problem is that not every problem can be solved in a way that turns a profit. And, when the race is on to make more money (or a higher valuation) faster and faster, any endeavor that requires a large investment in time before a return can be realized is just isn’t going to cut it. When the California Public Employees’ Retirement Board wants to know they’ll get back so much percent on their fund inside of six years, anything that takes five-plus years to realize is in trouble. This is why biotechnology firms got hurt so bad during the financial crisis, and they still haven’t recovered.

It would be great to see other models explored for solving problems that don’t just focus on what consumers will buy, and what will turn an investment. It’s interesting that growth in non-profits has outpaced growth of for-profit businesses in the US, but you don’t hear much about that. Many of these new non-profits are probably working similarly to startups: focusing on a small niche and working to solve a small problem before expanding—if they expand at all. It also could be advocacy groups, SuperPACs, launching to promote political causes.

What if the serial entrepreneurs who made it big decided to start a non-profit that focused on improving public education, and fund it with their own money instead of putting it into another college drop-out’s idea for a service that could be acquired by Facebook in two years? What if they took their money and used it to lobby for progressive policies in Congress like net neutrality and breaking up the cable monopolies? These aren’t even new models. Imagine what the sort of minds who create groundbreaking new consumer tech could do if they were free from the requirement to make money: just to improve people’s lives with the wildest ideas they can come up with.

It’s high-minded idealism, but there’s so much money being created and recirculated back into the system of startups, acquisitions, and acqui-hires. I don’t see why a civically minded, successful tech entrepreneur couldn’t just say “to hell with it” and fund some blue-sky project for the good of even a community, not just a wallet. Dale Carnegie built libraries. The best we’ve gotten is Mark Zuckerberg throwing $120 million at San Francisco schools. It’s a drop in the bucket of his $28 billion net worth, and hopefully it’ll work better than the $100 million he gave to Newark, New Jersey. The rhetoric of Silicon Valley is all about thinking bigger. Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are—without worrying about making it back.

I don’t write software for the Mac, or iOS, or at all, for that matter. I write HTML, CSS, and I know how to build WordPress themes, and some other useful stuff. So, I’m not the target audience for the WWDC Keynote, but devoted Apple fan as I am (and have been since 2005), I had to tune in. Two hours later, Im more excited for the future of the tools I use every day than I have been since switching from Linux. As a user of the Holy Trinity of Apple Hardware, Mac, iPhone, and iPad, I’m in a good place to see some serious benefits from the latest updates when they finally drop.

iOS has always had massive untapped potential, and with iOS 8, it looks like Apple’s taking most of the brakes off. As an iOS Power User (or at least aspiring Power User), who keeps Launch Center Pro and Drafts in his dock, the possibilities of what the new Extension functionality can do are mind-blowing. Being able to access my 1Password keychain without leaving Safari, and using TouchID to unlock it, will completely change how I do web browsing on my iDevices. And, I’m willing to bet the folks at Smile flipped their lid over the news too. At last TextExpander touch will not have to rely on hacks to work. (Well, maybe.) Plus, if the iCloud stuff works as good as it looks, I may finally have the Dropbox replacement I want without the ethical conundrums.

The Mac’s played second fiddle to iOS, but now iOS and the Mac are getting tied deeply together. Yes, there’s a new UI for the Mac, and it makes Mavericks look like iOS 6 in comparison, but Continuity is where the magic really happens. If it works half as well as they make it out to work in the demos, I may never cast even the wariest of eyes at an Android device for the rest of my computing life. I’m genuinely curious about the Handoff API, and if third party developers will have access to it. If I can start writing a piece on my iPad in Editorial, and seamless switch to my Mac or iPhone, that would be incredible. We’re still a ways from Joshua Topoloksy’s “Continuous Client”, but Apple’s getting closer than anyone else.

They can do it, because everything is integrated. Yes, Apple wants to keep us all in their world, but I don’t think they need any new, exciting, hardware to make it happen. If Apple lands the execution on the software side, the capabilities they unlock in the hardware lines they have now, even with the most incremental hardware upgrades on the iOS side, they’ll have a platform that blows Android and Windows out of the water. Without the control of the entire experience on hardware and software, it’s infinitely more difficult to make things work as well as Apple, and their third-party developers can. I can’t wait to see how this changes how I work, and I know I won’t be alone.

Another day, another data breach. This time it’s eBay, but it’s happened with pretty much every major Internet service. If only password hygiene was easier for normal people to grasp. It wouldn’t solve the problem of hackers getting user data, but would help contain the potential damage to user accounts. Even an encrypted list of passwords can be cracked by a dedicated hacker, and lists of common passwords, and their encrypted versions can be had easily online. Once again, using the same password in multiple place is just begging for a world of hurt.

It’s why I’m glad to see two-factor authentication rolling out in more places online. I use two-factor authentication for a lot of the sites I use every day, from Google, to Facebook, to the backend of this very site. The premise is simple: you have your username, and your password, but you also have a second code you have to enter when you log in that is tied to a physical piece of hardware on your person. If those codes match, you’re in. This means that someone trying to break into your accounts needs to have both your credentials, and that piece of hardware to get in. It’s not a new idea; security and financial services have long had dedicated “dongles” that provided codes, but now we all have smartphones, or at least flip phones with texting plans. Two-factor! It should be a slam dunk, right?

The biggest problem is crappy implementation. If, for example, I’ve read that if you keep logging into your two-factor authenticated Google account from the same computer, Google assumes you can trust it and stops asking for your code. [1] It’s a terrible assumption if, say, you’re homeless and use the same library computer to access your email. Or, if your two-factor code is being sent by an insecure method, say SMS or voice message, it’s not hard for a dedicated hacker to snag it before you do. If a server is still affected by the Heartbleed bug, then two-factor authentication can be bypassed, too. For services that use a short PIN (Apple, for example), a dedicated hacker can even just brute-force it.

Two-factor authentication is also a pain in the ass to set up with many services. Setting it up for a new service is the only time I ever use my phone to scan QR codes, which is a pain on its own. There’s also creating backup login codes to store, linking phone numbers where you’d prefer not to have them [2] , or installing crappy apps on your smartphone you’ll never use for other purposes. These are all things that can be overcome through a little diligence, and a little vigilance on the part of the implementers, though. The mainstreaming of biometrics can also help make two-factor even more secure. Even if the bad guy has my phone, they’d have a hard time getting into my authenticator app without my thumbprint.

It’s been said before: “Easy security is no good, good security is not easy.” We’ll never be rid of the threat of bad actors trying to get into our personal data, but there’s enough people working on the problem that the roadblocks are going to get stronger in the future. By making good security, if not easier to set up, at least harder to avoid, we move to a safer online future. Two factor will be part of it, but it’s going to take some time. Certain people will always want to use “12345” as the password on their email account, but the sooner we can mitigate the effects of that, the better off we’ll all be.

A while back, one of my favorite apps, Moves, was bought by Facebook. Cue the standard rending of garments and rage-quitting after the Moves people changed their privacy policy so that Facebook could have their data. In the midst of that great uproar, I tweeted that I would continue to use Moves until Facebook did something questionable with the data.

Why? Well, I’m no fan of Facebook. I’m a user of their service because it’s the one option I have if I want to stay in touch with friends and family, especially the non-techie friends and family. Likewise, Moves is the best app for tracking where I go during the day. There’s other automatic life logging apps, and I’ve tried them. They’re all big, bloated messes. Moves tracks where I go, how many steps, and guesses what mode I used to get there. It’s a great tool for getting a picture of my day.

So, now Facebook sees it. Or can see it. Whatever.

While I understand the desire to be protective of who has access to your data, I’m willing to surrender my information if what I get in return is worth the price. It’s why I still use Google, Dropbox, and a host of other free services. It’s also, yes, part of why I use Facebook. I’d still rather pay, and not give up my data if I have that option, but I’m okay with the alternative. I would have happily paid money for Moves up front, or through some In-App Purchase deal, if it meant they could stay independent. Looks like I’ll be supporting them with my data, instead.

This is one small piece of a larger argument over paying for services in data, but it’s an argument that often overlooks most people’s apathy about their personal data, and preference for free over paid. After all, broadband and mobile internet in the US is expensive enough for many people. Asking them to pay for currently free services like email, or social networking as well adds up to an expensive proposition. A lot of us in the technology world understand the value of our data, and have a greater ability to pay for those services normal people take for granted.

For there to be any improvement across the population, a lot of little things need to change first. Internet access needs to be cheaper, normal people need to learn more about the value of their data, and companies need to find a sustainable business model beyond selling data to advertisers, or charging up front for a service of unclear value. Tecies rage-quitting valuable apps and services makes for compelling Twitter post. It does little to accomplish any real change. In the time it takes to post your quitting message, a hundred or more new people downloaded the app from all the publicity.

Even considering all the above, if there were another app that does what Moves does, as well as Moves does it, and charged a reasonable price in dollars instead of data, I would jump in a heartbeat. I doubt any developer would be able to make a going concern out of it. So, I’m back where I started, and I’m okay with that. Until Facebook does something with my Moves data that goes too far, I’m going to keep using it. I’m still getting my data’s worth.

I’m on the cusp of accomplishing something I probably haven’t done since my elementary school days: filling a notebook. Back in November, I decided to experiment with the Bullet Journal, mostly just as a capture method for personal productivity. The idea of a record of my days would be a bonus. So, I picked up a pocket Moleskine, and a fancy pen quiver so I would never be with my notebook and without a writing implement, and began the slow journey of learning how to keep a notebook.

The hardest thing to wrap my head around has been the idea that “nothing doesn’t go in here”. It still isn’t fully baked into me, but I know that in the earliest days of my notebook habit, I would write down data points like the number of steps I took in a day, or what I had for lunch that, while have value, are things I already have a system for. It also became a way to track my work tasks, but now, not so much.

What my notebook has become is a way for me to capture thoughts, either in snippets or long-form. The more I use my notebook, even in the “wrong” way, has trained my brain to use it more often anyway. It might not be a complete portrait of my day, but it’s still a great aid to memory, and when I settle down to journal in Day One at the end of the day, I have reference, and something that will last long after all the stuff in Day One has become unreadable due to the march of technology. (Oh well.)

Though what excites me most about filling up this notebook getting the next one. Since a pocket Moleskine and a Quiver takes up a lot of space in my pants pocket, I’m moving to carrying around pocket notebooks (Doane Paper, if you’re curious) in a Hellbrand cover, and keeping a larger notebook in my bag or on my desk to fill in at the end of the day. I’ll be doing my long-form journaling in Day One for the foreseeable future, but incorporating something analog into my life has helped a lot.

Now, I just need to overcome years of terrible penmanship.