You're mistaking big with technologically complex. The author of the article clearly states that there is no complex technology involved in solving these problems. Yet, they are big. They're big because solving these problems would make our everyday lives significantly easier (much more so than a photo-sharing app, for example). But unfortunately, as you correctly point out, regulations prevent people who would be willing to provide a solution from doing so.
I'm not confusing the two; he's misusing the phrase "big problems." In ordinary usage, when people talk about solving big problems, they mean hard problems. If you said "back in the 1960s NASA was willing to take on big problems like landing a man on the moon," no one would argue that what you were saying was false on the grounds that it didn't make our everyday lives significantly easier. Someone might claim (probably accurately) that there were more important problems the government should have focused on instead, but no one could honestly claim you were misusing the phrase "big problems."
The examples may be "artificially" hard, but, aren't they still hard? And, by your own definition (solving big problems=hard problems), don't they still qualify as big problems?
It's true that big problems have to be "hard" in some way, or it would be presumed that these problems would already be fixed. However, in ordinary usage, problems can be made difficult by something that is not technologically or intellectually challenging, but by something that is just practically difficult.
I think a good example would be Dwolla. Or, you might consider deposing a cruel dictator a "big problem." But it's one that was made difficult by the "artificial" challenges of rallying the right type of support, circumventing corrupt government institutions, and so on. Dealing with institutions that have made change difficult is a real and non-trivial concern, even if it's an "artificial" one.
At the same time, the Millennium Prize problems are arguably some of the "hardest problems," but people don't run around talking about how they're the world's "big problems." It isn't implausible to say that solving problems that affect people significantly may be considered "bigger problems" or at least more worth solving those that are not.
On a somewhat related note, I think some of the most important "big problems" are those which are technologically challenging and practically challenging because of current moral fashions. Many of us here may think it important to get humans to a self-sustaining colony off Earth. But most people today don't at all consider it one of the world's "big problems." Still, I think we can do it...
Ok you're right, but why argue the semantics in this case?
The author's point is that too many start-ups are creating fun apps that give little moments of joy rather than ones that noticeably and significantly make life easier or better for people. You can criticize the author for trying to be controversial and write something he knows has a good chance of making the front page of HN; as we've all probably noticed posts with this general sentiment are definitely in vogue right now on HN, but I think it's worth moving on from that and noting what he defines as big problems.
I think all the problems he lists we can agree are 'big' in the sense that they create a lot of confusion and inefficiency in society. In the case of medical records, 'solving' that problem could literally save countless lives.
On a related note, I disagree with the author there are big problems in society that start-ups can't solve. I think there are plenty. For many I'm guessing the idea behind 'Kill Hollywood' springs to mind. For me, it's the ubiquity of advertising in society. Personally, I'd love to see Facebook, Google, and co trying to change the world to reduce the concentration of it in our lives, unfortunately it looks like they're more interested in the opposite.
"Ok you're right, but why argue the semantics in this case?"
The logic of the article is that great minds are working on small problems in irrelevant startups. However, these great minds are great at certain fields, like technology. They are not particularly great at politics, for example, which is necessary for many of the problems listed in the article.
Put another way, if I want to make the most good in the world, and I'm a great programmer, what should I do, build the next Dropbox (something I'm capable of), or try and fix government regulations which cause inefficiencies in parking bills? Never mind what helps the world the most, take into account my chance of succeeding.
Trains would have helped with Big Problems here in the US (suburban expansion), but Goodyear put $$$ into the bus and automobile industries indirectly somehow (tires wear out faster than steel train wheels). I can't find a direct source for this claim... Wikipedia will help me later....
Big companies can't solve these problems either. They're due to bureaucracy and government regulation. The way to fix them is to elect different representatives who will push for reforms.
So he should have said 'the hard problems, that are hard for non-technological reasons'? That's quibbling semantics and does not address the message of the post: that startups cannot solve certain kinds of problems.
I think an entirely reasonable response is: so what? Different companies have different purposes and there's no shame in actually tackling one problem instead of attempting to tackle some supposedly bigger/harder problem that you are much less likely to succeed in tackling and that you perhaps don't care for.
Moreover, the examples he gives may be annoying, but the cost to society, the companies involved or price people are willing to pay to have them solved may be lower than that of problems startups are addressing, so there is no ecnonomic incentive to work on them.
I think the more interesting thing is that the bureaucratic problems not solvable by startups still do get solved over time, just not with a grand launch day flourish or ample press coverage. They generally have to be solved by the people in the thick of the bureaucracy who are willing to fight for improvement. And when they win and the problem is taken care of, it won't manifest in an impressive product, it'll be nearly invisible.
All of which reinforces the idea that business is not always the model for success - it's just the most common one.
As far as I am concerned it's a post dedicated to piss the audience on which he used to promote it. Thus creating debate. Nothing more, nothing less.
But I think you strike on the point that big problems are relative. To me a huge problem is the lack of tech scene in my new area I've moved to, yet only a few hours away is a bustling one. But to most people that's a tiny problem.
If you're talking about ones that affect everyone, there are at least a few startups that I can name off by head (though mostly stealth) that are tackling big problems. It's quite an over-arching statement to suggest he knows every startup's mission.
I absolutely did not write the article to piss anyone off - I am a developer who has spent my fair share of time trying to build checkin apps, etc. If anything, the post simply reflects my frustration that I can't use my skills to address glaring inefficiencies in my daily life.
Dropbox is probably solving a bigger problem technically than any of the examples he gives.