This whole article sounds like a rehash of Zen Buddhism, or Stoisism. The advise overall is sound, but needs more context and leaves a lot out... which is why it's frustrating that the author didn't say "I stole all this from Zen Buddhism" or something.

He does also miss the point (also made in Zen) that while you are nothing, you are also, in fact, everything. Both facts; that you are the center of experience and also one insignificant part of an enormous objective reality are both true at the same time. As Shunryu Suzuki would say "do you understand". To which I say... uhh... I guess?

I was thinking it was Zen-like as well and agree that it's missing so much. Real Stoicism is about contentment not fatalism so I understand the comparison you're making.

This may be unfair to the author but I'm picturing him making a living by giving new-age style seminars to those who like the touchy-feely sounding words but don't actually require any meaning.

Sartre has a better explanation of this "nobody purpose" anyway.

Even wikipedia's summary is a better explanation than the author's (emphasis mine):

However, Sartre contends our conscious choices (leading to often unconscious actions) run counter to our intellectual freedom. Yet we are bound to the conditioned and physical world—in which some form of action is always required. This leads to failed dreams of completion, as Sartre described them, because inevitably we are unable to bridge the void between the purity and spontaneity of thought and all-too constraining action; between the being and the nothingness that inherently coincide in our self. Sartre's recipe for fulfillment is to escape all quests by completing them. This is accomplished by rigorously forcing order onto nothingness, employing the "spirit (or consciousness of mind) of seriousness" and describing the failure to do so in terms such as "bad faith" and "false consciousness". Though Sartre's conclusion seems to be that being diminishes before nothingness since consciousness is probably based more on spontaneity than on stable seriousness, he contends that any person of a serious nature is obliged to continuous struggle between: a) the conscious desire for peaceful self-fulfillment through physical actions and social roles—as if living within a portrait that one actively paints of oneself. and b) the more pure and raging spontaneity of no thing consciousness, of being instantaneously free to overturn one's roles, pull up stakes, and strike out on new paths.

It reminds me of self-discovered existential Nihilism. And instead of using the insignificance as a source of justification, it's attempting to use it as motivation. It falls a little short in its discussion of jobs and CEOs, but it's a good attempt.

Ignore the negative words of others, they won't matter in the long run. Don't focus on how to leave a mark on history; the names of both the worst despots and the best humanitarians will be forgotten once day. No matter what scientific advancements are made, you will not live forever (even if biological death is finally conquered, you're still just one bad fall away from death). All that really matters is what you do to maximize your "now", so focus on that.

And yet in four billion years when the sun expands and engulfs the inner planets, nothing will matter, nor will have mattered. We ARE a insignificant in the universe; I don't see how that's untrue.

Matter to whom? Mattering to myself was an important step in my personal growth, and there are other people in my life who think I matter, and people I've never met who simply believe we all matter.

How sad to convince ourselves not to matter to ourselves by saying look, I don't matter to the universe, so how could I possibly matter? Does anything matter to the universe? If not, it's probably not the best entity to look to to figure out what matters. If the universe does care about something, who says it doesn't care about you, just because it's big and you're small in comparison?

Actually any choice we make creates a new unique timeline where different choice(like stepping on butterfly) will make radical changes in the future, diverging from mainstream timeline. As in Sci-fi time travel which changes the past a little, leading to enormous changes in future: this is the past, and we are shaping the future with our choices. Would it matter in far future if sun is destroyed, if we choose to invest in space expansion and colonize new systems? The future isn't set in stone, fatalism is just learned helplessness, robbing us of free will and drive to improve our condition.

I don't see how it's relevant. Things that will happen in 4 billion years have no bearing on my actions today.

Our experience is that many discoveries have changed the world and created a different future than that which we otherwise might have experienced. They would have had to be inevitable for them not to matter and that's certainly contentious though true in some cases. Given they have made a difference how does an extended time scale necessarily negate their influence? Your assertion might turn out to be true or not.