Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47354180

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

https://poker-study.onrender.com/

I really like the range memorization tool from GTO Wizard, but want to be able to put in custom/arbitrary ranges to test. I also want to be able to import and simplify ranges from other sites. Work in progress, but every scenario is url encoded (warning: subject to future breaking changes) and I use those urls in for links in my Anki decks.

https://github.com/nwestallen/poker-study

This is the earliest clear definition in the sense I was recalling that I can dig up:

"In its place would be substituted the concept of partial radical ignorance. The adjective “radical” is here meant to distinguish this kind of ignorance from the neoclassical concept of rational ignorance, which refers to a state of affairs in which knowledge exists that would improve our situation but that the expected cost of acquiring it exceeds the expected benefit. We thus choose not to know what is not in our interests to know. In contrast, radical ignorance refers to our unawareness of even the existence of relevant knowledge that we could know at zero cost."

https://departments.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL16_1_2003/4_Iked... (digital reader page 5)

I'll concede that this usage is highly niche and lesser known, but I'll have you know that I'm wholly incapable of appreciating irony and will never fully acknowledge my error.

There is a name for it. It's called "radical ignorance".

There most likely would have been fewer firms if the merger went through (though it could be possible that more competitors enter the market in that alternate timeline). Idk if that constitutes less competition necessarily, and competition understood as number of firms or something similar certainly doesn't always lead to better outcomes.

In the cases of "natural monopolies", consumer welfare is maximized when one firm is able to realize all the economies of scale because the benefits of mass production are so large that goods/services can only be produced at the lowest cost with sufficient consolidation. Utilities like electricity and water are often used as examples of natural monopolies.

You did say usually in fairness and I'd agree that increased competition usually leads to better outcomes. And we usually see multiple firms competing in any given industry without antitrust intervention.

The tradeoffs of allowing or preventing the merger are more abstract and counterfactual. We cannot know for sure what the world in which Adobe successfully acquired Figma would look like. Its natural to imagine concerns of Adobe simply killing, enshittifying or failing to improve the product - all things that still may happen under Figma's new corporate structure. Also consider the potential integrations with and improvements to Photoshop that have been missed.

That all being said I think Figma is an excellent product for the price and I have no fondness towards Adobe (though I've never really been a customer) and I'm glad that Figma exits as its own delightful product.

Edit: the point I want to illustrate is that we do not get to choose what others value, or to dictate what is scarce and no one is entitled to make a living in a specific way even if they really want to