As a technology article this is interesting
Not sure why they feel qualified to make statements like this:
"When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure."
Because everyone should live in a poorly constructed cookie cutter house and get into petty fights with their homeowners association the way God intended.
/S
☞ 
the article seems to be well written and well studied too. Why is that statement (which seems to be the common thread in any documentary about Mongolia for the last 20 years) unqualified according to you?
What qualification does someone need for that statement?
Thanks for the thought, anyway. I hadn't come across the idea that tent cities might be a good thing, actually.
Whether it's a failure or not depends on whether they're living in yurts by choice because it's their traditional way of living, or they're doing it because it's cheap and they can't afford anything else. (There are probably also some sanitation issues—I don't think most yurts have running water, so public infrastructure would have to make up the difference there.) And you do need some minimal qualifications for assessing that: talking to the people living in the yurts would be a good start.
Because the notion of not being surrounded by useless things no one needs is repulsive to westeners and the concept of people living without having any consumer goods or access to contemporary western medicine being different than suffering is impossible for us to grasp.
You have drawn the attention of Count von Count (of Sesame Street)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
