Human foveala, the central part of your vision, has on average about one cone every 30 arcseconds, but resolution of 20 arcseconds is still quite common because the variety in cone density is quite high. So someone with good vision, maybe someone who would naturally be inclined to work in graphics, would need over 430ppi at 2 feet, or 290 at 3 feet. This screen seems to be perfect for someone with good vision at 3 feet, if you place the screen closer you would need even higher resolution.

Naw, not at 32".

32" 4K isn't much better than pre-Retina iPhone, even after accounting for viewing distance between say, ~18" for phone, and 2-3 feet for desktop.

I agree for many people, I might even go so far as to say "normies", this sort of thing doesn't matter. But after many years of poking at this, I strongly believe it's not because their eyes can't see the difference, it's because they don't understand the question we're asking (i.e. about overall quality rather than detail density, and when you try explaining detail density, they think you're asking if a monitor "looks real" which sounds ~impossible)

This whole thing is disappointing because all I've wanted for a decade is 27" 5K to be mainstream and ubiqituous, that hits a sweet spot - surprisingly, only slightly less PPI than this, but a much more reasonable price. They of course exist, its just, consistently fringe and Mac-focused, presumably due to vagaries of HDMI.

But I run double on Mac so an 8k is 4k.