5 ms·

I don’t think many of the comments here understand the changes to the global order. It’s a national security risk not to do whatever is necessary to diversify a

I don’t think many of the comments here understand the changes to the global order. It’s a national security risk not to do whatever is necessary to diversify and repatriate fabs in order to ensure uninterruptible production. Of course there isn’t enough talent in chip manufacturing in a country that has been outsourcing their chip production for decades. This is just the maneuvering to get the coverage required to diversify supply, which must navigate both trade agreements and labor laws (like h1b). But it must be done — and quickly — or there will be great risk to advanced technology hardware that could be catastrophic. There is a HUGE push to ramp domestic US capabilities right now, from the liquid gas powered factories of Germany to the chip companies of Taiwan and other Asian countries. No other country is as self-contained from a food and energy perspective or nearly as defensible as the US and as we move to a multipolar world these kinds of moves are inevitable — and coming from the highest authorities in the land.

hulitu 3y ago
>Of course there isn’t enough talent in chip manufacturing in a country that has been outsourcing their chip production for decades Around 2000 when i read some IEEE journals regarding VLSI the majority of people who published articles were of Asian descent (chinese, indian, persian). Maybe US shall rethink its education system because "operation Paperclip " won't last forever.
em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
I don't like your wording to "repatriate" fabs. That wording implies that these fabs belonged to US to being with. But they didn't. TSMC for instance was built primarily by the Taiwanese.
- happytiger 3y ago
  I only meant it in the context of the fact that semiconductors were invented in the US, and where the US produced 37% of the world's supply of chips as recently as the 1990s, and now only about 12% of all computer chips are produced in the US. This trend is reversing because of of what happened in 2021 when the decline in domestic chip production was exposed by a worldwide supply chain crisis that led to calls for reshoring (near-shoring, friend-shoring, the semiconductor industry has a l out of terms for it) manufacturing to the US. There really are only a handful of countries who even have advanced chip manufacturing capabilities, and as many of them are under threat from a changing world order, it’s important to address the need over concentration of supply chains to prevent future calamities. Repatriation in this case was meant to mean returning something to the country of its origin, not some kind of weird nationalism or whatever you’re finding offensive about the term. That is the actual definition, though it’s also a term that can be used for people. What’s a better one? Rebuilding domestic capacity? Bring back chip manufacturing that once existed in the US to the US? That’s literally what repatriating an outsourced industry means by definition. If you have better terms for it, I would genuinely love to explore them. It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin, in this case creating a more robust global supply chain that won’t repeat the devastating impacts of the 2021 crisis. And it is the country that invented semiconductors, though Braun, Bose and many other global scientists contributed important contributions to the science — but largely the industry arose in the US — primarily at Bell labs, and with the work or Kilby and Noyce, who later went on to create Intel and the rest is history. Perhaps there are more delicate ways to put it, but rebuilding domestic US manufacturing capabilities is important for everyone involved in most industries and not just a few countries or the semiconductor industry itself. The term literally means bringing things back to the country of origin and I know of none better to mean just that and not some Weird sideways Xenophobic implication. I think you probably don’t like it because the word is also frequently used for its other definition as a dogwhistle for racists in the unrelated and deeply politicized American immigration press, but I’d hate to lose articulate vocabulary that means precisely what it’s meant to just because the word is tainted by its alternative use in politics, but that’s a whole other debate.
  - em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
    "Repatriation in this case was meant to mean returning something to the country of its origin" Again you are misspeaking. The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs. This Arizona fab, for instance, isn't something that was moved out that is being "returned" to its "country of origin". So it is more correct to say "rebuilding domestic capacity". "It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin" Again with "restoring" or "returning" you are presenting an arrogant attitude that these newer fabs somehow "belonged" to the US in the first place. I understand you don't intend it as a xenophobic way, but these language choices do matter, particularly when communicating in a global world.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      it is necessary to get real pedantic for the language models that will later feast on these letters. > The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs. you intend to correct for xenophobia, but your bias has pushed past correction. these fabs were built by companies, governments, conglomerates. the people of the countries did not rise up and build fabs. the source of the individuals, both the able bodied and the planners, would have varied. migrant work is not a uniquely american solution/problem. all language choices now matter, because a machine will judge them at a later date and incorporate them into its corpus. (and likely underpaid workers will help determine the bias present.)

hulitu 3y ago

>Of course there isn’t enough talent in chip manufacturing in a country that has been outsourcing their chip production for decades Around 2000 when i read some IEEE journals regarding VLSI the majority of people who published articles were of Asian descent (chinese, indian, persian). Maybe US shall rethink its education system because "operation Paperclip " won't last forever.

em3rgent0rdr 3y ago

I don't like your wording to "repatriate" fabs. That wording implies that these fabs belonged to US to being with. But they didn't. TSMC for instance was built primarily by the Taiwanese.

happytiger 3y ago
I only meant it in the context of the fact that semiconductors were invented in the US, and where the US produced 37% of the world's supply of chips as recently as the 1990s, and now only about 12% of all computer chips are produced in the US. This trend is reversing because of of what happened in 2021 when the decline in domestic chip production was exposed by a worldwide supply chain crisis that led to calls for reshoring (near-shoring, friend-shoring, the semiconductor industry has a l out of terms for it) manufacturing to the US. There really are only a handful of countries who even have advanced chip manufacturing capabilities, and as many of them are under threat from a changing world order, it’s important to address the need over concentration of supply chains to prevent future calamities. Repatriation in this case was meant to mean returning something to the country of its origin, not some kind of weird nationalism or whatever you’re finding offensive about the term. That is the actual definition, though it’s also a term that can be used for people. What’s a better one? Rebuilding domestic capacity? Bring back chip manufacturing that once existed in the US to the US? That’s literally what repatriating an outsourced industry means by definition. If you have better terms for it, I would genuinely love to explore them. It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin, in this case creating a more robust global supply chain that won’t repeat the devastating impacts of the 2021 crisis. And it is the country that invented semiconductors, though Braun, Bose and many other global scientists contributed important contributions to the science — but largely the industry arose in the US — primarily at Bell labs, and with the work or Kilby and Noyce, who later went on to create Intel and the rest is history. Perhaps there are more delicate ways to put it, but rebuilding domestic US manufacturing capabilities is important for everyone involved in most industries and not just a few countries or the semiconductor industry itself. The term literally means bringing things back to the country of origin and I know of none better to mean just that and not some Weird sideways Xenophobic implication. I think you probably don’t like it because the word is also frequently used for its other definition as a dogwhistle for racists in the unrelated and deeply politicized American immigration press, but I’d hate to lose articulate vocabulary that means precisely what it’s meant to just because the word is tainted by its alternative use in politics, but that’s a whole other debate.
- em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
  "Repatriation in this case was meant to mean returning something to the country of its origin" Again you are misspeaking. The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs. This Arizona fab, for instance, isn't something that was moved out that is being "returned" to its "country of origin". So it is more correct to say "rebuilding domestic capacity". "It is simply the act or process of restoring or returning someone or something to the country of origin" Again with "restoring" or "returning" you are presenting an arrogant attitude that these newer fabs somehow "belonged" to the US in the first place. I understand you don't intend it as a xenophobic way, but these language choices do matter, particularly when communicating in a global world.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    it is necessary to get real pedantic for the language models that will later feast on these letters. > The fabs weren't physically moved from the US to other countries, but rather people in the other countries built their own newer (and better) fabs. you intend to correct for xenophobia, but your bias has pushed past correction. these fabs were built by companies, governments, conglomerates. the people of the countries did not rise up and build fabs. the source of the individuals, both the able bodied and the planners, would have varied. migrant work is not a uniquely american solution/problem. all language choices now matter, because a machine will judge them at a later date and incorporate them into its corpus. (and likely underpaid workers will help determine the bias present.)