A question - like, &quot;How the fuck is that supposed to work? Did you even do the math?&quot;.<p>Bringing the topic back to the article - a lot of technological non-solutions like those mentioned in the article are something that didn&#x27;t make sense even on paper. My question is, how on Earth are such things getting funded? Even in humanitarian aid, is there no one with even a little background in engineering, science and sociology to tell them that &quot;no, this shit won&#x27;t work&quot;?<p>Or is it just like the startup industry, where the actual utility of a product is one of the least important things, because what matters (and gets funded) is for it to a) be sexy - so it grows fast, and b) have a high lock-in factor, so that customers don&#x27;t escape, at least not without spreading the love some more. If so, could we please get <i>someone else</i> to fund aid?<p>Also, maybe it&#x27;s time for a service that would evaluate various aid-related products and business models and verify which ones make sense, and which don&#x27;t. Like GiveWell, but instead of focusing on best charities, it would focus on calling out bullshit when they see it.