2 ms·
"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 fr
by 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 agoit 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.)