pattydo t1_jbo40zp wrote

I know that some education systems in the world are trash, but sometimes good ones have you do things to teach you skills, not just learn how to repeat a process.

>If it does not have a research or pratical purpose - why add it ?

They were tasked with creating a carbon neutral car. That's one of the things they did to get there.


pattydo t1_jbkydkn wrote

>It's the same with all manner of student competotions and projects from the Putnam competition, the various DARPA challenges etc. The more a university promotes itself the more grant money and industry cooperation it's likely to get. It's actually good for both the students and the university as a whole.

This is very different than what OP is saying.

>The point is that it's a pointless, dead-end feature that was only implemented to generate superficial interest.

This is what's cynical.


pattydo t1_jbk70gh wrote

The amount of cynacism in this thread is absolutely wild. These kids (they're freaking undergrads!) aren't claiming they are saving the world here. Like, here are a couple of quotes from these kids.

>It is really still a proof-of-concept, but we can already see that we will be able to increase the capacity of the filter in the coming years.


>We want to tickle the industry by showing what is already possible. If 35 students can design, develop, and build an almost carbon-neutral car in a year, then there are also opportunities and possibilities for the industry.


pattydo t1_jbjwxf7 wrote

It's not that either. It's just a class project. They made a car that captures more carbon than it emits.

It's incredibly cynical to think that this project was used to get money instead of teach students and build their skills. Sure, nothing here is all that useful and practical. But maybe one of these students will go on to create something that is.

And like, they accomplished it as freaking undergrads from scratch. It's not like this can't ever be improved upon.


pattydo t1_itlmi3x wrote

Wouldn't a low interest rate with changing unemployment be a pretty decent indicator that the link isn't very strong?

>so it’s unlikely there’s any empirical evidence that an increase in unemployment won’t still have an impact on the inflation rate

It's not no impact, it's just a lot less of one than in the past.

>but is there any evidence that an increase in unemployment isn’t still linked to a decrease in the inflation rate

Yes. When unemployment spiked in ~2010 but inflation was at 1%

There's just so so much more monetary policy and economic forces that impact inflation these days.


pattydo t1_it8ao7d wrote

>You don’t think a decrease in overall economic activity will result in a decrease in fuel consumption?

If you wanted to change the subject you should have specified.

But yeah, consumption can pretty easily be reduced without impacting price. Our markets are too concentrated and barriers too high.


pattydo t1_it83rus wrote

Yeah, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

>Another side to this is that they want to dampen the labor market which helps reduce wage-spiral inflation a bit

But like Powell has said (and is backed up), unemployment and inflation no longer have a strong relationship.


pattydo t1_it7n7ki wrote

The relationship between inflation and interest rates really isn't that strong anymore. Largely because the link between unemployment and inflation isn't very strong anymore either.

The fed doesn't even think raising interest rates will do much for inflation.


pattydo t1_it7m4co wrote

They're mostly related at this point because countries think, in vain, that interest rates will fix their inflation.

Edit: It's fair not to believe me. Maybe listen to Jerome Powell?

>says the relationship between inflation and unemployment is gone

Here he is talking about how interest rates won't impact food or gas prices

It's not that interest rates can't fix inflation. It's more that it won't.