If you look at the paper it's actually a collaboration between MIT researchers, Caltech researchers, a Spanish Siemens groups, and an Indian power company.

MIT just has a more effective marketing division, it seems. Here's the Caltech press release for comparison.

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/tweaking-turbine-angles-s...

> "Collectively, wind farms generate about 380 billion kilowatt-hours each year in the United States. If every U.S. wind farm were to adopt the new strategy and see efficiency increases similar to those found in the new study, it would be equivalent to adding hundreds of new turbines capable of powering hundreds of thousands of homes to the nation's power grid, says Caltech's John O. Dabiri (MS '03, PhD '05), the Centennial Professor of Aeronautics and Mechanical Engineering, and senior author of a paper on the project that was published by the journal Nature Energy on August 11."

At least in this case, it seems that MIT is only tangentially related to the research. The lead researchers are from Spain and India with financing from Siemens.

Probably both, it is a top research university in the world, with a lot of smart people and funding. Also note the "T" in MIT stands for technology, they do tend to focus a bit more on practical applications and not just theoretical knowledge.

Its good marketing and I would keep an eye on what accounts are submitting these. Its practically a trope on HN at this point. Not to say that MIT doesn't do cool stuff, but there are few institutions as good at self promotion.

In addition to the other replies, it's also worth mentioning that they have an incredibly large endowment, worth $27.4 billion last year, the fifth largest of any private university in the US. That's compared to an average of $1.1 billion, and a median of just $200 million, less than 1% of MIT's.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/18/college-endow...