It just feel wild to me that using something which would be in offices today would be so ridiculous as to not even be usable for text. The article has to take f

It just feel wild to me that using something which would be in offices today would be so ridiculous as to not even be usable for text. The article has to take for granted that any display with a resolution below 4K is not sufficient for reading text. That's unsupportable. I'm not arguing that 1440 or 4k isn't better than 1080. I'm not saying that monitors aren't cheaper than the Apple Vision Pro. I know that text on a screen in 1440p looks better than 1080p. I'm just saying it seems more ridiculous to be like "the monitors that people use in offices all around the world today cannot be used as monitors, welcome to 1987 if you think so" because there exist alternatives that people would prefer to use. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... For goodness' sake, 61 percent of people running Steam have their resolution as 1080p. I'm just saying it's uncharitable for the author to make it seem as if the resolution that a vast swath of people use in 2023 is so inadequate as to not be worth taking seriously. He's saying "Yes, they will “work” as a monitor if you are desperate and have nothing else, but having multiple terrible monitors is not a solution many people will want", and buried in that is the assumption that the majority of people are using "terrible" monitors that (sarcasm quotes) work. I don't think that's reasonable.