The paper you're citing investigates the idea that "early childhood investments have significantly higher benefit cost ratios than those targeted at older age group", and it concludes that "there may in fact be no relationship between program cost effectiveness and the age of the recipient."
From this you seem to have drawn the surprising conclusion that there is no benefit to greater in investment in early childhood education, a conclusion which the paper you're citing specifically warns against:
> This finding does not imply that there should be less investment in early childhood programs. There are many early interventions that have large positive rates of return, and there are powerful equity reasons for investment in children.
> The data shows that prevention can be cost effective, but in addition, later treatment and amelioration using evidenced based programs can also succeed.
More developers are coding in Windows than any other operating system -- almost more than Mac and Linux combined. The Hacker News filter bubble might lead us to believe otherwise.
Most people will categorize crashing, overheating, and graphical artifacts as a more severe problem than "what's that small noise I hear once in a while".
Well, that would depend on whether it's really "absurd" or not; maybe it's effective. You put on glasses, people think you're smart. You wear an expensive watch, people think you're successful -- "nothing succeeds like success", "dress for the job you want", "talk the talk, walk the walk", and so on.
I only read page one of that link (thanks for sharing), but it appears to limit its scope to a specific scenario: given a lump sump of money (a windfall), it is it better to invest all at once or dollar cost average over a period of time? It is not recommending against dollar cost averaging in general; it is recommending against it for windfalls. Diversification is also not mentioned in the article.
You seem to be assuming that everyone is a javascript developer and wants to work in it.