Yes, actually, they are -- because the things you list that would defuse that aren't achievable with a wide problem; only with a deep one.
We have LDNLS pretty well solved. The rest is, at best, research-level stuff that just isn't ready for prime-time, and probably will never be until something more sophisticated is employed. Providing a training set won't ever reach competence. You have to provide the ability ti learn independently, and well. No one has that on the table. Yet.
Vote for a person who is not your current congressperson. Get others to do likewise if possible.
Last election cycle: 94% re-election rate; 14% satisfaction with congress.
As long as these elected officials continue to work to convince their constituents that it's always the other congress-critter's fault, there will be no change. There's no reason for them to change their behavior as things stand right now. Tell the new guy that if he doesn't knock off the corporate "donations", he'll lose his job, too.
But pointing at Apple and saying they are doing a bad thing by doing precisely what their stockholders expect them to do? That's not going to get anyone anywhere useful.
The vote is the last (perhaps only) tool we have left to us to even have a hope of remediating our slide deeper into oligarchy. Use it or not, your choice. I do. Every time.
My answer to temporary light incursion is curtains, generally speaking, as heavy as required. It's an easy problem to solve, and the solution also sources worthy privacy benefits. However, if the laser is powerful enough to do harm, and the beam crosses my property line, much less enters my home, then my feeling is someone needs to be shot, same as with any other innately reckless use of a dangerous instrument.
I'm pretty unhappy with more general light "pollution" -- I think we lose a great deal when we can't see, photograph, and otherwise explore and appreciate the night sky -- but first, it's not something we can solve easily at this point in time, and second, it's not inherently permanent -- the problem goes completely away the instant the lights go off -- so "pollution" is at least somewhat hyperbolic. I'm particularly sensitive to this as I live where there are dark skies, which we came very close to losing because of the Bakken oil development failing to deal with the gas output of the wells over there in any way other than burning it off. Made a huge amount of light. Lucky for us here, oil prices fell so far that the field's economic case turned negative.
but if the quantity of sound coming from your neighbor is excessive, you have every right to complain about that.
I don't think so. I think the only complaining you can do that is reasonable is to beat yourself over the head for not buying more property so you weren't in range of the neighbor's sounds, or that you failed to insulate well enough, etc.
If you buy (or rent) a house by a highway, you're going to hear cars and trucks and so forth. If you buy (or rent) a house by another person, you're going to hear people and their activities, etc. If you buy (or rent) a house adjacent a runway end, you're going to hear all kinds of aircraft. If you buy (or rent) a house next to a shooting range, you're going to hear guns. If you buy (or rent) a house next to a dog kennel, you're going to hear barking. Etc, etc.
In every case, I see the answer as either (A), don't do that, or (B) address the problem on your end (hence insulation, earplugs, etc.)
My outlook says I should regulate myself. Not that I should regulate other people.
If I understand correctly, most home owners object to the neighbours putting rusty old junkers up on blocks in the yard not because it hurts their precious feelings but because it hurts their property values. In that case it definitely does cause financial "injury" to the neighbours. Just sayin'.
I understand the idea behind this. However, I reject the assertion that because you bought property next to mine, I have the right to say what you do on it unless it directly affects my health and welfare or the physical state of my property -- interference with water flow, something of yours falls onto my land, etc.
If you decide to live somewhere, the way I see it, I have domain over what I own, and no further. If I want lots of influence, I need to buy buy lots of land. Same thing for noise pollution, etc. Want to get away from it all? See to it that you have an away to get to. Otherwise, insulate and/or buy earplugs. Insulation is highly under-rated. Not only reduces noise, but makes heating and cooling much more efficient.
As for the value of my property as to related to the adjacency to another's property and their doings thereon, again, if I want to control some bit of land, and even gain income by asserting that land will remain in, or out of, some specific state, then again, I need to own that land.
And before anyone jumps me about this, yes, I know how it actually works. What I'm describing here is how I think it should work -- and how I actually act towards my neighbors. Because that, at least, I can control. I'm not an asshole about it, either. The grocery store next door has a tight fit getting a semi in for unloading; the bay faces my property across a not-very-wide parking lot. When we fenced in our lot, I cut a pretty good-sized triangle off the corner of the plot in the sense that the fence cut inside that, in order to give the trucks room to maneuver. I didn't ask them if they needed it, I didn't try to sell it to them, I didn't even mention it to them. The manager of the store came over here the day after the fence went up and asked me "why'd you do that?" and I told him "because your trucks obviously needed the room." Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean you have to hold on to it like a little bitch. And strangely enough, for some reason, the store treats us very well indeed.
There are some issues here that may apply. Is the vendor blocking traffic? Some placements will generate traffic congestion. That makes the vendor non-harmless. Is the vendor on private property without permission? That's a bad idea all around, not so much because "hey someone is selling stuff" but because it sets a negative precedent about the right to control what one owns. Blocking the sidewalk? That's no good either. The sidewalk seems to me to be something you can reasonably share -- it's public property, which means the vendor has a stake in it as well -- but if you block the sidewalk, you've gone too far. I don't think it's too much to ask that a vendor arrange their business such that the sidewalk and the road both remain traversible without requiring detour or delay.
I'm no fan of licenses per se, I think they are counter-productive on almost every level I can think of other than as a means of extracting money from the business community (and often that's counter productive as well), but if you're selling food, cooked or otherwise, I *am* a fan of inspection. If you haven't passed a recent inspection for handling, storage, cleanliness and refrigeration / prep as would be considered reasonable practice for whatever it is you are selling, I'd prefer you weren't allowed to sell, and if I can't have that, I'd at LEAST like to know about it so I can avoid your enterprise. Likewise healthcare, sexual services, etc. You should have the right to conduct business, but that should be tempered with the responsibility to do so in a safe and sane manner that takes the health and welfare of your customers into account as much as possible.
IMHO, most communities go way, way, too far when it comes to who can do what, where. And they do this to create "sanitized" zones where the "undesirables" are prevented from sullying the space they consider to be theirs. I find that attitude generally despicable if the space is public. If the space is private, then it should be 100% up to the owner, not the community, how that space is used. You want to spend a zillion bucks on a big house? Fine. Guy next to you wants to put up a rusty old junker on blocks right next to the property line? Fine. You don't like it? Should have bought more property (and perhaps less house) so your tender little eyes wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of photons you don't like. Some high fences would help too.
Anyway. It seems to me that the high road almost inevitably consists of giving your fellow human beings some room to exist and hopefully exercise some opportunity to improve their lot. I'm really pretty tired of "me first" explanations for what amounts to casual maltreatment of others. I understand and agree with concerns about private property you own. Beyond the boundaries of your own property, my sympathies for complaints about actions of others that do not directly pick your pocket or break your leg drop off dramatically.
We have six adult cats. I looked at that thing, and I just can't see it doing the job that has to be done.
What I was referring to, anyway, was the whole job. Clean, replace, take out, dispose of, sweep the area. Nothing that'll do that yet for any number of cats.
But I do appreciate the pointer. Perhaps some years from now, when attrition has brought down the population.
With a basic income, you'll eventually get to a situation where too few people actually run the machine of society. That makes society extremely unstable in the long run.
Doesn't necessarily follow. If automation can run one thing, it can run another. One of those things may well be "society." Just a question of how long it take to get there.
Lard knows people don't do a very good job of running society. This one, anyway.
Also, in the experiments that have been run so far, people do not tend to choose to stop working; that turns out to be a very small segment. Check out the various BI experiment tats. I just saw some interesting ones the other day, but I can't remember where. Shouldn't be too hard to find if you're really interested.
Of course, I still like to make things that I could just buy, and enjoy the pleasure afterwards.
Of course. And the less you have to do, the more you can choose to do.
It'll require many to change their mindset, but I think it's an attractive enough prospect that it won't be a horrifying undertaking for most.
There's the 1% and those who aspire to be like them; but I like to think most people are more interested in being happy and healthy than in excess for its own sake.
That may just be a case of un-called for optimism, though.
That may well be a very good approach in terms of covering all the bases in a distributed fashion. However, now the problem arises of how to combine all of that training into one coherent, functional space so your vehicle knows everything it needs to know. While it seems obvious that a lot of hardware spread wide will gain lots of experience, and all taken together might consist of a very well covered solution space, as each NN system will be different, even in how it solves the same problems, how to winnow that down to a full, but minimal, solution set that would fit in your own vehicle, or talk to it in a timely manner to control a task that has millisecond-resolution response requirements... that's just plain gnarly.
No, not like people. An NN of the type described doesn't learn further; won't generalize from other experiences (FI, this thing won't know what to do with a pedestrian unless it's observed the human driver stopping for some number of them. Otherwise it has no training that places value on a pedestrian. Same for cat, chunks of some trucks blown-off retread, potholes, etc.) A person will know from their far, far deeper experience that it's inherently a bad idea to run down the three year old that walked in front of the car, will usually at least try not to run down little Susie's pet cat, and will choose to go around the pothole if it is reasonable to do so.
An NN is a low-dimensional approach to solving problems. But most non-trivial problems -- and driving a vehicle is an entirely representative proxy for such problems -- tend not to be uniformly low-dimensional. Many aspects come into play suddenly and unpredictably. Some might not be seen for years, or ever. But then again, they might. In order to deal with such things, more than low-dimensional problem solving is required. NN's can't do it. They're inherently limited.
It's going to require very high level software. Not intelligent, but damned well informed and replete with a huge rulespace that can solve all of the types of reasonably solvable problems in the space.
That's all IMHO, of course. But I'm right, so there's that.:)
Well, with most Libertarians being grumpy aging men
Guilty.
But the only parts of libertarian thought I consider valuable are the bits that say no one has any justification in interfering with the personal and consensual choices of others with regard to non-macroeconomic and non-contractual behaviors. The rest is, as far as I'm concerned, bunk.
All for Basic Income. Furthermore, I see it as inevitable. The various attempts at analysis in the context of the type of economy we have now are, IMHO, missing the core issue by a very wide margin: when goods are available without your labor, you will not be laboring. Basic Income looks squarely at this inevitability and suggests a means to address it.
Underneath it all, there is a quickly eroding relationship between work and a happy life. Used to be you had to sweep the hearth with a broom. You had to make the broom, too. And there was every reason to look upon this as both worthy and fulfilling. Because it was necessary. Then others, much more efficiently, made the broom. Then came vacuum cleaners. Then came the Roomba and brethren. This is the path. This is not the end of the path. Trying to consider the issue as if the path stops here breaks any analysis at the starting line. The same thing will apply, and in the same ways, to truck driving, serving food, maid/butler roles, manufacturing, farming... the path will go on until there is no material need left to automate.
I do not, and I suspect few others do either, regret the loss of having to sweep the floor. I will not regret not having to clean the catbox, not having to mow the lawn, not having to shop, etc. There will be no existential crisis in my home due to increasing automation of labor. There will be no guilt when I employ my wholly-machine-made-widgetry, although if the capitalist-fixated manage to derail Basic Income and all suitable stand-ins for that economic functionality, I will certainly feel bad for the people they have screwed out of a very bright future.
I'm pro-personal and consensual choice, and wish to hell there was a decent formal mechanism to determine "informed" to back those concepts up. The future, indeed, seems to me to call loudly and obviously for shades. But that doesn't mean I'm not grumpy. Oh, I'm damn grumpy.:)
In situations that do not resemble the training data, the network's response is essentially undefined, as well as unknown (it's all unknown... an NN results in behaviors that are not deterministic in the sense that anyone planned them out -- they are what they are, that's all.)
there's no way we can evaluate this ethical dilemma and end up putting the prosecution of pedophiles and terrorists ahead of our own encryption needs.
That's not true for legislators or the courts, because that does not define the competing interest for them. For them, the counter interest is delineated by future electability; if they can stand up there and say they are "tough on CP", they will gather votes.
The only way this can be changed is if a majority of the voting public can be educated as to the validity and importance of the argument you made; but so far, there's not even a hint that might happen.
1) USB connectors -- ALL of them -- are less robust than audio jacks. They're going to fail sooner. Guaranteed.
2) There are a bazillion analog headphone / earbud options. Do you want them obsoleted?
3) DRM. Do you want it? Ever pipe the output of your phone/pad elsewhere? Say goodbye to that.
4) We already have bluetooth if you want digital, plus, no wires, an actual reason to use it.
5) Digital wiring tends to generate RF interference. Analog wiring doesn't. Both can carry RFI from inside the device, but generally don't. Much.
6) Passive analog earbuds are less expensive to manufacture; you'll pay more for digital earbuds, which must be active
7) If anyone thinks an analog option will remain with these connectors, be aware that part of the proffered approach is the ability to "inform the user that analog audio is not supported" based on hardware support choice of the manufacturer; if, knowing that, you still think analog audio will remain an option, I have a bridge to sell you.
The smart thing here is to refuse to purchase anything that uses a USB-C approach to audio headphones. Consumers already let themselves get screwed over hugely by accepting HDMI incorporating HDCP; they're probably about to do it again with this, but there's still an outside chance a similar debacle could be forestalled or prevented.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, actually, they are -- because the things you list that would defuse that aren't achievable with a wide problem; only with a deep one.
We have LDNLS pretty well solved. The rest is, at best, research-level stuff that just isn't ready for prime-time, and probably will never be until something more sophisticated is employed. Providing a training set won't ever reach competence. You have to provide the ability ti learn independently, and well. No one has that on the table. Yet.
Yes, your reasoning is sick. Let me know if you actually want to make a comment on my reasoning.
Vote for a person who is not your current congressperson. Get others to do likewise if possible.
Last election cycle: 94% re-election rate; 14% satisfaction with congress.
As long as these elected officials continue to work to convince their constituents that it's always the other congress-critter's fault, there will be no change. There's no reason for them to change their behavior as things stand right now. Tell the new guy that if he doesn't knock off the corporate "donations", he'll lose his job, too.
But pointing at Apple and saying they are doing a bad thing by doing precisely what their stockholders expect them to do? That's not going to get anyone anywhere useful.
The vote is the last (perhaps only) tool we have left to us to even have a hope of remediating our slide deeper into oligarchy. Use it or not, your choice. I do. Every time.
This is not Apple's fault. This is congress's fault. Period.
Vote accordingly.
My answer to temporary light incursion is curtains, generally speaking, as heavy as required. It's an easy problem to solve, and the solution also sources worthy privacy benefits. However, if the laser is powerful enough to do harm, and the beam crosses my property line, much less enters my home, then my feeling is someone needs to be shot, same as with any other innately reckless use of a dangerous instrument.
I'm pretty unhappy with more general light "pollution" -- I think we lose a great deal when we can't see, photograph, and otherwise explore and appreciate the night sky -- but first, it's not something we can solve easily at this point in time, and second, it's not inherently permanent -- the problem goes completely away the instant the lights go off -- so "pollution" is at least somewhat hyperbolic. I'm particularly sensitive to this as I live where there are dark skies, which we came very close to losing because of the Bakken oil development failing to deal with the gas output of the wells over there in any way other than burning it off. Made a huge amount of light. Lucky for us here, oil prices fell so far that the field's economic case turned negative.
I don't think so. I think the only complaining you can do that is reasonable is to beat yourself over the head for not buying more property so you weren't in range of the neighbor's sounds, or that you failed to insulate well enough, etc.
If you buy (or rent) a house by a highway, you're going to hear cars and trucks and so forth. If you buy (or rent) a house by another person, you're going to hear people and their activities, etc. If you buy (or rent) a house adjacent a runway end, you're going to hear all kinds of aircraft. If you buy (or rent) a house next to a shooting range, you're going to hear guns. If you buy (or rent) a house next to a dog kennel, you're going to hear barking. Etc, etc.
In every case, I see the answer as either (A), don't do that, or (B) address the problem on your end (hence insulation, earplugs, etc.)
My outlook says I should regulate myself. Not that I should regulate other people.
YMMV, obviously. But that's how I see it.
I understand the idea behind this. However, I reject the assertion that because you bought property next to mine, I have the right to say what you do on it unless it directly affects my health and welfare or the physical state of my property -- interference with water flow, something of yours falls onto my land, etc.
If you decide to live somewhere, the way I see it, I have domain over what I own, and no further. If I want lots of influence, I need to buy buy lots of land. Same thing for noise pollution, etc. Want to get away from it all? See to it that you have an away to get to. Otherwise, insulate and/or buy earplugs. Insulation is highly under-rated. Not only reduces noise, but makes heating and cooling much more efficient.
As for the value of my property as to related to the adjacency to another's property and their doings thereon, again, if I want to control some bit of land, and even gain income by asserting that land will remain in, or out of, some specific state, then again, I need to own that land.
And before anyone jumps me about this, yes, I know how it actually works. What I'm describing here is how I think it should work -- and how I actually act towards my neighbors. Because that, at least, I can control. I'm not an asshole about it, either. The grocery store next door has a tight fit getting a semi in for unloading; the bay faces my property across a not-very-wide parking lot. When we fenced in our lot, I cut a pretty good-sized triangle off the corner of the plot in the sense that the fence cut inside that, in order to give the trucks room to maneuver. I didn't ask them if they needed it, I didn't try to sell it to them, I didn't even mention it to them. The manager of the store came over here the day after the fence went up and asked me "why'd you do that?" and I told him "because your trucks obviously needed the room." Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean you have to hold on to it like a little bitch. And strangely enough, for some reason, the store treats us very well indeed.
Okay, now jump me. :)
There are some issues here that may apply. Is the vendor blocking traffic? Some placements will generate traffic congestion. That makes the vendor non-harmless. Is the vendor on private property without permission? That's a bad idea all around, not so much because "hey someone is selling stuff" but because it sets a negative precedent about the right to control what one owns. Blocking the sidewalk? That's no good either. The sidewalk seems to me to be something you can reasonably share -- it's public property, which means the vendor has a stake in it as well -- but if you block the sidewalk, you've gone too far. I don't think it's too much to ask that a vendor arrange their business such that the sidewalk and the road both remain traversible without requiring detour or delay.
I'm no fan of licenses per se, I think they are counter-productive on almost every level I can think of other than as a means of extracting money from the business community (and often that's counter productive as well), but if you're selling food, cooked or otherwise, I *am* a fan of inspection. If you haven't passed a recent inspection for handling, storage, cleanliness and refrigeration / prep as would be considered reasonable practice for whatever it is you are selling, I'd prefer you weren't allowed to sell, and if I can't have that, I'd at LEAST like to know about it so I can avoid your enterprise. Likewise healthcare, sexual services, etc. You should have the right to conduct business, but that should be tempered with the responsibility to do so in a safe and sane manner that takes the health and welfare of your customers into account as much as possible.
IMHO, most communities go way, way, too far when it comes to who can do what, where. And they do this to create "sanitized" zones where the "undesirables" are prevented from sullying the space they consider to be theirs. I find that attitude generally despicable if the space is public. If the space is private, then it should be 100% up to the owner, not the community, how that space is used. You want to spend a zillion bucks on a big house? Fine. Guy next to you wants to put up a rusty old junker on blocks right next to the property line? Fine. You don't like it? Should have bought more property (and perhaps less house) so your tender little eyes wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of photons you don't like. Some high fences would help too.
Anyway. It seems to me that the high road almost inevitably consists of giving your fellow human beings some room to exist and hopefully exercise some opportunity to improve their lot. I'm really pretty tired of "me first" explanations for what amounts to casual maltreatment of others. I understand and agree with concerns about private property you own. Beyond the boundaries of your own property, my sympathies for complaints about actions of others that do not directly pick your pocket or break your leg drop off dramatically.
He has been sent by God to make America grate again.
FTFY
About those funky songs, I have only this to say.
Alluding to them, anyway.
We have six adult cats. I looked at that thing, and I just can't see it doing the job that has to be done.
What I was referring to, anyway, was the whole job. Clean, replace, take out, dispose of, sweep the area. Nothing that'll do that yet for any number of cats.
But I do appreciate the pointer. Perhaps some years from now, when attrition has brought down the population.
Mowing: My lawn is a topological nightmare. :)
But do I, really? Or... could I just choose to do something else?
I think I can. :)
Doesn't necessarily follow. If automation can run one thing, it can run another. One of those things may well be "society." Just a question of how long it take to get there.
Lard knows people don't do a very good job of running society. This one, anyway.
Also, in the experiments that have been run so far, people do not tend to choose to stop working; that turns out to be a very small segment. Check out the various BI experiment tats. I just saw some interesting ones the other day, but I can't remember where. Shouldn't be too hard to find if you're really interested.
um.... well, is it a mime? Also, African, or European?
They can't make me watch. :)
Of course. And the less you have to do, the more you can choose to do.
It'll require many to change their mindset, but I think it's an attractive enough prospect that it won't be a horrifying undertaking for most.
There's the 1% and those who aspire to be like them; but I like to think most people are more interested in being happy and healthy than in excess for its own sake.
That may just be a case of un-called for optimism, though.
Agreed. Also, not only unstoppable, but also recently speeding up a great deal.
I expect to live to see either a solution or a huge mess (or both.) And I'm more-or-less 60 years old already.
That may well be a very good approach in terms of covering all the bases in a distributed fashion. However, now the problem arises of how to combine all of that training into one coherent, functional space so your vehicle knows everything it needs to know. While it seems obvious that a lot of hardware spread wide will gain lots of experience, and all taken together might consist of a very well covered solution space, as each NN system will be different, even in how it solves the same problems, how to winnow that down to a full, but minimal, solution set that would fit in your own vehicle, or talk to it in a timely manner to control a task that has millisecond-resolution response requirements... that's just plain gnarly.
No, not like people. An NN of the type described doesn't learn further; won't generalize from other experiences (FI, this thing won't know what to do with a pedestrian unless it's observed the human driver stopping for some number of them. Otherwise it has no training that places value on a pedestrian. Same for cat, chunks of some trucks blown-off retread, potholes, etc.) A person will know from their far, far deeper experience that it's inherently a bad idea to run down the three year old that walked in front of the car, will usually at least try not to run down little Susie's pet cat, and will choose to go around the pothole if it is reasonable to do so.
An NN is a low-dimensional approach to solving problems. But most non-trivial problems -- and driving a vehicle is an entirely representative proxy for such problems -- tend not to be uniformly low-dimensional. Many aspects come into play suddenly and unpredictably. Some might not be seen for years, or ever. But then again, they might. In order to deal with such things, more than low-dimensional problem solving is required. NN's can't do it. They're inherently limited.
It's going to require very high level software. Not intelligent, but damned well informed and replete with a huge rulespace that can solve all of the types of reasonably solvable problems in the space.
That's all IMHO, of course. But I'm right, so there's that. :)
Guilty.
But the only parts of libertarian thought I consider valuable are the bits that say no one has any justification in interfering with the personal and consensual choices of others with regard to non-macroeconomic and non-contractual behaviors. The rest is, as far as I'm concerned, bunk.
All for Basic Income. Furthermore, I see it as inevitable. The various attempts at analysis in the context of the type of economy we have now are, IMHO, missing the core issue by a very wide margin: when goods are available without your labor, you will not be laboring. Basic Income looks squarely at this inevitability and suggests a means to address it.
Underneath it all, there is a quickly eroding relationship between work and a happy life. Used to be you had to sweep the hearth with a broom. You had to make the broom, too. And there was every reason to look upon this as both worthy and fulfilling. Because it was necessary. Then others, much more efficiently, made the broom. Then came vacuum cleaners. Then came the Roomba and brethren. This is the path. This is not the end of the path. Trying to consider the issue as if the path stops here breaks any analysis at the starting line. The same thing will apply, and in the same ways, to truck driving, serving food, maid/butler roles, manufacturing, farming... the path will go on until there is no material need left to automate.
I do not, and I suspect few others do either, regret the loss of having to sweep the floor. I will not regret not having to clean the catbox, not having to mow the lawn, not having to shop, etc. There will be no existential crisis in my home due to increasing automation of labor. There will be no guilt when I employ my wholly-machine-made-widgetry, although if the capitalist-fixated manage to derail Basic Income and all suitable stand-ins for that economic functionality, I will certainly feel bad for the people they have screwed out of a very bright future.
I'm pro-personal and consensual choice, and wish to hell there was a decent formal mechanism to determine "informed" to back those concepts up. The future, indeed, seems to me to call loudly and obviously for shades. But that doesn't mean I'm not grumpy. Oh, I'm damn grumpy. :)
In situations that do not resemble the training data, the network's response is essentially undefined, as well as unknown (it's all unknown... an NN results in behaviors that are not deterministic in the sense that anyone planned them out -- they are what they are, that's all.)
Nice experiment, though. :)
That's not true for legislators or the courts, because that does not define the competing interest for them. For them, the counter interest is delineated by future electability; if they can stand up there and say they are "tough on CP", they will gather votes.
The only way this can be changed is if a majority of the voting public can be educated as to the validity and importance of the argument you made; but so far, there's not even a hint that might happen.
1) USB connectors -- ALL of them -- are less robust than audio jacks. They're going to fail sooner. Guaranteed.
2) There are a bazillion analog headphone / earbud options. Do you want them obsoleted?
3) DRM. Do you want it? Ever pipe the output of your phone/pad elsewhere? Say goodbye to that.
4) We already have bluetooth if you want digital, plus, no wires, an actual reason to use it.
5) Digital wiring tends to generate RF interference. Analog wiring doesn't. Both can carry RFI from inside the device, but generally don't. Much.
6) Passive analog earbuds are less expensive to manufacture; you'll pay more for digital earbuds, which must be active
7) If anyone thinks an analog option will remain with these connectors, be aware that part of the proffered approach is the ability to "inform the user that analog audio is not supported" based on hardware support choice of the manufacturer; if, knowing that, you still think analog audio will remain an option, I have a bridge to sell you.
The smart thing here is to refuse to purchase anything that uses a USB-C approach to audio headphones. Consumers already let themselves get screwed over hugely by accepting HDMI incorporating HDCP; they're probably about to do it again with this, but there's still an outside chance a similar debacle could be forestalled or prevented.
It's always worth pointing out that one of the more powerful gatekeepers is the media; They've proven that (yet again) during this primary.