Which ignores that it is 4$ per prototype and it works for longer than 1 week already

from the article:

“If it does prove durable, it could be a relatively cheap way to get freshwater to people in need of it.”

The engineers are unsure of how long it will last and if it’s actually cost effective, yet there’s many HN comments here that seem to suggest they know better. Where are you getting your information that the rest of us are not privy to?

$4 for 4 people too.

The economics might not work well for everybody. Although international aid might ease some of the burden it may turn out to not be a good fit for Somalia, but it might be helpful for others. As drought and desertification worsens, even parts of the western US and Mexico might find some benefit in something like this.

It's for a family of four though, so 5% of annual income on average, meaning for 50% of people it's still worse.

I'd also think that the GDP doesn't factor in international aid, so 25$ per year for the poorest could be still better than the current alternative (no idea on what that is, though).

It could save the lives of many people in a sudden water shortage until tankers arrive.

Tech like this could even help some people in the US if their water becomes undrinkable for long periods of time due to some natural disaster or flint-like shenanigans.