Dell unveils 8K 32-inch monitor at CES 2017 | Hacker News Reader

Dell unveils 8K 32-inch monitor at CES 2017

extremetech.com

106 pointsdmmalam79 comments

For $5000, I'd much rather buy the 4K 120hz HDR 0.1ms response time OLED monitor Dell announced in CES 2016 (the UP3017Q). Unfortunately it seems like it may never come out. Hopefully Dell will try again with microLED in the future.

An 8K 60Hz LCD in 32 inches seems like a waste for literally every application I can think of except medical diagnostics (and even then, many doctors might not have the vision to benefit from this over 5K). The only practical uses for 8K are in completely different form factors and using different screen technologies.

The sweet spots for every current use case (gaming, content creation & consumption, web browsing, reading, medical diagnostics) that are possible with HDMI 2.1 are probably as follows:

Desktop monitor: 27" 5K 165Hz HDR OLED/microLED display

VR HMD: 2" 4000x4000 165Hz HDR OLED/microLED displays per-eye

AR HMD: 2" 8000px diameter HDR ???Hz fiber scanning displays[1] per-eye

[1]: https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will...

I've wanting an LG OLED55C6P for a monitor. It's a 55" 4K curved TV with HDR. I figure it's like 4 27" 1080 monitors without the borders in the middle. It's also vertically taller than one of those monitors in portrait orientation while still having tons of space to the side of said portrait. As I'm old enough to need progressive lenses, I don't really think there's any value in having higher pixel density than 4K at that size.

The input lag on all LG OLED HDR TVs (including the latest gen) is atrocious if you plan on gaming. Current gen was only down to 60ms in "game mode" when it was first released, and is still at least 34ms with all of the latest updates.

I still haven't had a reason to replace my 27" 1440p 120hz IPS (with 5ms input lag) that I bought in 2012 for $500. I've been waiting for OLED/microLED for quite a while.

I gave up PC gaming to spend time out of my office. 4k TVs seem pretty sweet for coding and terms.

Depends on what you need. 60ms latency would drive me nuts for anything but watching video.

That depends on the type of gaming you do. Not gaming is fast twitch shooting.

I recently bought a Samsung KS8000 55" for a monitor, and I have to say it is incredible. Going back to standard monitors at work was painful. There is so much space to arrange windows and nothing has to be stacked.

How far do you sit away from it? I can't imagine sitting with a 55" monitor less than a metre from my face.

My optometrist said that you should sit at least a meter (roughly an arms length) with a regular size monitor. For this I'd say you probably want it even further away.

A meter away? Who sits that far from their monitor? I bet your optometrist doesn't. Standard viewing distance for a monitor is more like 20-26 inches (51-66 cm). OSHA guidelines are "at least 20 inches away".

Also your arms are not a meter long. Arms that long would imply a height of about 8 feet (2.4 meters) assuming fairly normal proportions.

I also have a 55" Vizio P55-C1 on a standing desk. It's on cheap VESA legs to drop it down to 0.5" off the desk (the included stand puts it about 3" off the surface). It's on an iMovR thermodesk elite with an 83" by 30" top and has a BenQ BL3201PH on either side in portrait mode. Using 1x scaling in windows looks just right. The only issue with the Vizio P55-c1 is that it won't do true 4:4:4 chroma at 4k, but input lag is great, especially at 120hz when running 1080p for games (I play Overwatch at a fairly high level).

1x scaling factor is the key for reasonable viewing distances with 4K. Consider that it's basically quad (2x2 setup) 1080p monitors, and compare the size of 24" 1080p screens in such a configuration with a single 4K 55".

~3 feet. It is a little close. I was going to buy the 49" model but when I went to the store the 55 and 49 were the same price and I couldn't in good conscious spend the same amount for a smaller monitor.

Edit: I also use it with my Xbox one and then I push my chair back another 2 feet, so I'm ~5 feet away

I have the 60" KS8000 and it is pretty awesome, find it too big to use as a monitor. I'd probably look at the smallest size they make (which seems to be 49"). Do you find the visual quality and uniformity to be adequate as a monitor? The smallest entry in their new 2017 QLED line seems to be 55", which again for me would be a problem (something in 40-45" range would be ideal, I think).

I agree with it being too large. I was going to get the 49" but the 55" was the same price at the time and I couldn't bring myself to pay the same for a smaller screen.

I have to say it looks great. I haven't noticed any problems visually with it and it has very uniform color. There is one annoyance. There is a PC mode setting to get 4:4:4 Chroma subsampling which is awesome, but if your PC disconnects while the monitor is on, it defaults back to the TV mode. So I find myself changing the setting every time I boot up my machine (Which is daily as I have an SSD so its like a 30 second boot, and I like to shut it down to save power while I'm away.)

Best this about it is I can have 3 editor up each with 160 lines of code at 100 char width and still have half the screen open for documentation or other things. I haven't been able to fill it completely yet and nothing is every hidden behind another window.

Similar setup here, I've got a 40" 4k Samsung HDTV to deliver a similar DPI to a 27" 1440p monitor. It's cheaper and more effective than 4 1080p monitors and awesome for games.

Link?

It's the 2015 curved screen model and no longer manufactured.

What you need is a TV that support 4:4:4 4k@60Hz via HDMI 2 and a Graphics card that supports HDMI 2 (any NVidia 900 or better will do it).

rtings.com has a fantastic set of reviews you can look up: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best

My friend got a Samsung UN40KU6290 4K 40" TV as a monitor for around $250 during the holiday sales, and I think it's an absolute steal even at the regular price of $300. It does chroma 4:4:4, has best of class input lag, and the picture quality is decent too. But most importantly, you get the resolution of 4 1080P monitors for the price of 2, and the size is large enough to comfortably make use of all the desktop real estate without having to mess with scaling.

It really baffles me how they can afford to sell it at that price.

>> It really baffles me how they can afford to sell it at that price.

Just remember these are essentially a piece of glass with special stuff printed on it. Yes, it's very complex and expensive to set up but then it's more or less like a printing press. (no, I don't know the actual process)

I have that exact TV and have been using it as a monitor for a while.

The input lag is actually fairly bearable in the recently updated game mode for development and everyday use, though I certainly wouldn't use it for competitive gaming.

My main issue with it as a monitor is the Automatic Brightness Limiter. Rtings has a fairly good description of the symptoms: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c6

Basically, the brightness of the TV varies across a huge range depending on the content being displayed, with brighter content causing the TV to dim itself automatically. It's a huge distraction on a day to day basis because every time you switch to a new tab in a browser or minimize/maximize a tab, you can see your entire screen dim/brighten. There is no way to turn it off completely AFAIK, even through the TV's service menus. The workaround I've found involves setting the contrast level to 55 or below, which reduces the max brightness of the TV and makes the ABL changes much less drastic, but it's definitely still noticeable and distracting, and of course the contrast and max brightness suffers.

If I had known everything about this TV that I know today, I would not have bought it to use as a monitor (would probably have gone with some high end LCD with good local dimming). Watching movies on it in a dark room is an awe-inspiring experience though, and is what makes me reluctant to go through the trouble of returning/selling it and getting something else. That's my 2c anyways, feel free to make use of this information how you will.

I didn't know about the automatic brightness issue with OLEDs, it looks pretty annoying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqx_9P645wY

Why do they have to use it? I know OLEDs have burn-in problems but I don't see how this would help with that, it looks more like an energy saving thing.

Damn, that's quite annoying on my LG Plasma (but not really noticeable in other than web browsing), I thought OLED would certainly not need to have the same feature.

> would probably have gone with some high end LCD with good local dimming

Are you also talking about TVs? I'm considering doing this, as someone who knows about it, what would you look at if you were to buy something now/in the near future?

For a high end LCD, I'd go with a Vizio P series assuming they've rolled out the promised firmware upgrade that adds 4:4:4 chroma support. The local dimming is supposed to be very good on that one. And it has relatively low input lag. No chroma 4:4:4 (AKA chroma subsampling) kills it as a monitor though, so I'd do some research to make sure it supports that properly before pulling the trigger.

For something more value-minded, I'd go for something from the Samsung KU6290/KU6300 series. No local dimming on this one, but otherwise it's an incredible value. I've written more about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354234

To be honest, I would have an extremely hard time justifying spending 2-3 times on a higher end LCD over the KU6290/KU6300 series if I were in the market for a new TV-as-monitor today myself. Local dimming could still be worth the additional investment if you watch a lot of movies though, having blacks appear as pure black really made the movie watching experience that much more enjoyable for me and my friends.

If you're old enough to need progressive lenses, do yourself a real favor and get a second pair of glasses: a single vision set adjusted for normal monitor/laptop distance.

With that 55" monitor, how far away are you going to put it? Across the room?

With single vision glasses you can choose how far away to put the monitor. I had mine adjusted to 20", the distance to my laptop screen in normal use. I'm currently using a MacBook Pro Retina 15" running Windows 10, and my second monitor is a 24" 4K monitor, a ViewSonic VX2475SMHL-4K mounted on an Amazon Basics (Ergotron) arm, spending most of its time in portrait mode.

With the adjustable arm I can put this monitor at the same viewing distance as the laptop screen, or rotate it to landscape mode for a movie. Portrait mode works out great for everyday programming - I can have documentation on the portrait screen and code on the MacBook screen.

And if I want to go someplace, I can just pack up the MacBook and still have a perfectly crisp view of the entire screen. Can't do that with progressives.

I can't recommend the single vision lenses highly enough - it's one of the best things I ever did for myself. (But don't just ask for "reading glasses" - those will be closer to a 16" focusing distance, much too close for computer use. Bring your laptop to the optometrist and you can try out different lens corrections right there.)

I agree. I am 56 and have used single vision glasses since I was 16. But recently I noticed my distance vision was poor and my optometrist recommended progressives. They're great for almost everything. But not computing! I just use my old glasses. I am lucky I suppose that they just happen to be in the sweet spot. I have a third pair just for reading, and they don't really suit programming either.

At work my setup is in a corner desk. I have a laptop right in front of me and a 24" monitor propped up about a foot behind it, so I setup the displays as being one above the other. I can see both completely. glance down for the laptop and look forward for the big display. My glasses are a progressive lens with distance straight ahead and an intermediate "computer" distance part way down, and reading at the bottom. With some head tilt I am able to use both monitors through the middle section (the far part is still workable for the far monitor though a little head tilt improves is). For my phone or reading I look down and for driving I just do as normal.

For a single large desk monitor of that height, I may need a different pair of glasses. I wouldn't want to tilt my head back far enough to see the top of it clearly. Perhaps just a non-variable lens optimized for the display distance. I could keep them on that desk when not in use.

Yeah, for all those younger HN readers that whole "lens hardening unable to change focus" thing usually happens some time in your 40s. It's one of the first "old people" things to happen and you're not really old when it hits. Our line of work makes it especially challenging to find a good solution, but they are out there. Custom lenses that work for you are worth every cent.

Honestly for hardcore gaming I don't much care about refresh rate beyond 60 Hz, so the it boils down to input lag for me. But this depends on your game of choice. I don't really play shooters. Anyone have a recommendation for a low input lag 4k monitor? Possibly with gsync?

I feel like 32" at a high PPI is hitting the point of perfection in a display.

The 32" size gives a generous amount of space for multiple programs to be visible on the screen at once, without being too large for normal desk usage. Trying to use something like a 47" inch TV results in lots of head movement to scan the entire screen.

For anyone who has used a high PPI screen, the smoothness of text and geometric shapes is beautiful.

Before this the two compromises were a 32" 4K, which is a normal PPI screen, or a 27" 5K, which doesn't have the same real estate for 4-up viewing.

Alas, $5k is clearly a steep price filtering out all but the largest hardware budgets. Considering the price of the 32" 4K Dell dropped by 50% over a few years, hopefully these will be sub-$2k by 2019.

I use a 49" 4K tv as a monitor and you're right. Oddly since I'm using a standing desk it's really helpful (and natural) to lean a bit to see upper left and right areas of the screen.

That being said the overall experience is fantastic and a serious productivity boost.

I'm on the lookout now for a 55" or larger 4K with a curved screen as I think that would help on both fronts.

How do you find the brightness an pixel arrangement using a 4k tv? I have been eyeing up a 43 inch tv as a monitor for a while.

Of all the problems you can have with this setting, brightness is not one of them.

I have been using 4k 40" tvs and monitors with OSX and FreeBSD/linux for over 2 years now and overall I am quite happy with the choice.

I wouldn't go much above 40", as it would involve too much head movement (while sitting at least, I find myself comfortably using only 2/3 of the height).

One annoying problem especially with older or low end TVs was definitely lag. Even after disabling all "picture enhancements" and setting the equivalent of gaming mode, many TVs in 2014-2015 had high lag, from the 120ms that even Samsung/LG were showing, up to the 300+ms of Seiki and Haier and other no-name TVs. That makes the monitor unusable even for text editing. From personal experience, 2016 Samsung at least are much better, but better try them before buying.

Next comes viewing angle and color -- cheap panels have a limited vertical viewing angle, and sometimes even limited color depth.

Then you have to fight with OS and applications. For some combinations of OSX and TVs, I had the OS applying non-removable overscan after identifying the screen as a TV. OSX also does antialiasing which results in blurred characters with small fonts in terminals. I haven't found a good bitmapped font to use.

Apps also have problems, e.g. chrome on OSX does not refresh well the bottom bar when you move windows between the 4k and the retina screen. Or, some video players fail to go full screen on 4k.

>> I'm on the lookout now for a 55" or larger 4K with a curved screen as I think that would help on both fronts.

Check out the LG OLED55C6P. As the name indicates 55" old Curved. Go to the store and sit right in front of it as though it's on your desk. I really want that at home and at work. Oh, and there's a 65CP6 as well...

27" is as big as I find usable.

24" here. A friend gave me a Dell U2711b (and I had an LG 27") and I have to turn my head too much. I got a Dell P2416 and it's the perfect size for me.

Try pushing the larger display slightly further away until it covers the same field of view as the smaller display. Getting the display to 4+ feet away from your face will noticeably reduce eye strain. You don’t need your eyes to converge as much, and you don’t need to focus as close, leaving your muscles closer to their relaxed position.

For work where you’re constantly changing your gaze from near to far (esp. e.g. working outside) or taking frequent breaks to walk around so your eye muscles are flexing back and forth, it’s not as big a deal, but if you’re in a relatively static position focusing close all day long, the extra distance is nice.

(Actually, both those Dell displays you mentioned are pretty low resolution. If you get a chance, try some of the 200+ ppi ones. Makes a huge difference even for text/code.)

That needs a really deep desk, although I think I'm already at around 4 ft. About the PPI, I don't know, I'm already having framerate problems with Ubuntu with QHD, doubling the pixels sounds like I'm going to have a terrible time. Not to mention my eyes, good as they are, are probably not going to be able to resolve the difference between 130 ppi and 200ppi.

> probably not going to be able to resolve the difference between 130 ppi and 200ppi.

Probably not if you actually have your monitor 4 feet away.

I'm a happy owner of a Dell UP2715K 27" 5k monitor, which is around 220ppi. At 2x scaling, I find it to be a very pleasant pixel density for working with code; text looks gorgeous.

My only complaint is I wish the monitor was a touch larger. I would be very interested in a 32" 8k display when the price drops a little bit; 4k 32" displays just don't have a high enough pixel density for my taste.

Looks like a MacBook Pro 2015 or earlier can drive the 5K at full resolution at 60Hz by using both Thunderbolt ports? If so, that's pretty good.

Yes, it can. A colleague of mine is driving his 5k Dell Display with the MB Pro.

Yes. I use the Dell display with a 2015 Macbook Pro, using dual Displayport cables. It works pretty well. I think you need the model with the AMD M370X GPU to drive an external 5k display.

I also use the Dell 5k monitor with a PC with a Geforce 980 GPU; it works surprisingly well in Windows 10. (You can even play some games at 5k ---- Civilization VI is really pretty at 5k!)

Linux support is woefully bad, however. I guess this will change as these HiDPI configurations become more common.

When I was in a hardware store last year, I had a chance to compare a 4k and 5k iMac side by side. IIRC, the size was the same and it came down to PPI.

For casual use 4k was plenty, but where 5k really proved itself for me was small terminal text. I was able to take the font size in terminals down noticeably smaller on the 5k while still having readable text.

That's why the 8k interests me - when doing programming, my particular work-flow usually ends up with lots of open terminals, documents, and web pages as information and source code are woven together into a program. The smaller the readable text, the more I can fit on the screen at once and see at the same time. With 275 PPI and large screen size all in one, this sounds like it might be the dream coding monitor...

It always baffles me when people say "There doesn't need to be any higher PPI! We've already maxed out on the human eye perceiving pixels!"

Sure that's lovely, but that doesn't mean graphics and text won't gain more fidelity/ use cases from higher PPI. Just because you can't focus on individual pixels and pick them out doesn't mean your brain caps out at percieving more than 225 PPI..

I've just replaced a 32" 4K (4096x) LG with a pair of 28" UHD displays on my main workstation, and I could definitely see benefits to upgrading to 5k at this size, but 8k is just nuts.

My dream is get the PPI somewhere around 5k at 27/28", but use all that bandwidth for an ultrawide display, so you don't need it to be so tall and don't have the issues you get with 2x displays, such as a bevel in the middle and no real ideal layout.

> use all that bandwidth for an ultrawide display

Responding from my Dell u3417w, I have to agree that ultrawide is a great form factor for a monitor. The PPI of my monitor is about that of an Apple Thunderbolt display, so I do miss the "retina" experience of my Macbook Pro driving the monitor, but overall having so much horizontal real estate is glorious. I think my dream, too, would be a monitor with these dimensions but a higher PPI.

Even after months with the glorious panel in the LG and using the 15" retina as second display, going back to big ole' country pixels was almost a price I was willing to pay for ultrawide. I think the 2 x 28"s is the right choice for me, but only by a gnat's dick.

If I could have beaten my Mac into driving the LG at a non-2x scale, I'd have kept with it, it's such a nice panel. But now it's on my Win 10 box, which supports it perfectly; that was a very pleasant surprise.

http://resxtreme.com or http://displaymenu.milchimgemuesefach.de can help your use case

I have that Dell at work. It's... interesting.

I am not happy about its brightness level -- it's noticeably dimmer than an Apple Cinema Display, and turning brightness/contrast up just gives you a washed-out image.

The other thing is that the width, for me, doesn't add much utility. I like my windows centered so I am looking straight ahead at what I am working on, and keeping certain things (like log outputs and dashboards) in the periphery of my vision is just distracting. I know some people enjoy tiled window arrangements and vertically-split editor windows, but that stuff just doesn't do anything for me. So I am not using the horizontal space very efficiently. The best use of the width is being able to read wide diffs or other things that go side by side.

I also couldn't get it to work as a USB hub, not sure why. Thunderbolt would have been better, at any rate -- then you'd only need two cables instead of three.

I am considering replacing my home monitor, a Cinema Display, with the Dell 27-inch 4K, but it's just so damn ugly. It's got the thick bezel instead of the "infinity edge" one or the black glass of the 5K (which I can't buy since it requires two DisplayPort connections).

I agree. I think that's the same one I have, and I love it. Wide enough that I can fit three windows side by side, and tall enough to be useful. I'd actually like higher PPI (like you I've noticed it's not quite retina, even at 4K), and I'd like it to be even wider. Four windows side by side would be amazing. But still, for now it's a huge leap forward for my productivity and happiness. I'm hoping to see more ultra widescreen monitors and higher PPIs on them in the future.

I wish Dell would sell affordable high resolution 16:10 monitors and not limit them to 1920x1200 only.

I'd like a picture window sized (or even wall sized!) display I could hang on the wall. I'd love to be able to select a "view" from any live camera in the world.

Now i just need to upgrade my eyes, and possibly my brain, to take in all those pixels.

Dell is really pushing the envelope when it comes to monitors. I was tempted to get a 4K monitor during the holiday season, but decided not to when I found out that I had to upgrade all of my graphics cards and laptops.

When I heard about the 4k OLED 120Hz Dell monitor from last year, I immediately thought that that was the perfection of display technology for me.

OLED seems to have the best of all worlds: - high refresh rates - fast response times - deep blacks - good contrast - wide viewing angles

The only issue that I've seen brought up about OLEDs is possible burn-in, but hasn't that issue been solved? Seems like Samsung and LG are confident in their OLED offerings.

Why hasn't this technology come to the PC? I know for a fact that the demand exists. Enthusiasts and gamers would absolutely fall over for an OLED display like the Dell UP3017Q.

Sadly the Dell UP3017Q is vaporware - we're still waiting for it to start shipping a full year after it was announced, and Dell haven't given a reason for the delay.

I suspect they did run into issues with burn-in. OLED TVs tend to avoid that now, but PC monitors have to deal with a lot more static images for much longer periods.

LG OLED TVs partially mitigate that by using WOLED (white OLED pixels topped with color filters).

Have they solved color accuracy yet? In the past manufacturers would compensate for varying rates of decay of the materials in the screen for different colors by overdriving some, making color accuracy inconsistent over time. IIRC that was the reason Apple gave for avoiding OLEDs in the past, although whether it was actually that or supply chain issues I'm not sure.

Isn't the OLED problem just the blue pixel degrading? I don't think the red and green are affected.

What the hell, the ideal size for 4k resolution scaled from a 30" 2560x1600 is about 40".

What is with these small 8k/4k monitors? Useless. I just buy TVs with HDMI 2.0. 50" 4k tvs are, what, $400 these days?

I get more pixels can be nice, and 8k is probably where that comes into play, but if I have 8,192 lines of resolution, I want some screen real estate too.

Having switched from a 30" 2560 to a 27" 5k display, I do sometimes miss the screen estate, but the increased resolution is really nice. Text rendering become much better, and it gets really stunning, if you display large images (> 15 megapixel) full screen.

Who else here would rather have a HiDPI 21:9 monitor than a 8K one? Afaik, we still have to choose between HiDPI and 21:9.

May be it is just me, the ~220PPI on 4K / 5K iMac looks a little fizzy when zoomed. i.e The "larger text" option on OSX.

May be 8K will help? I dont understand why an 4/5K monitor will still look fizzy.

Great to see. I think the previous high-water mark was the IBM T221 IPS Display (3840x2400), sold between 2001 and 2005, which was also fairly expensive as I recall.

Really? LG has 5K monitors at the Apple Store with 5120x2880 res, the same that's been available for a couple of years on the 27" iMac

I stand corrected - thanks!

Perhaps, at some point, we can declare victory on the PPI axis and turn some of that spatial resolution into a wider gamut with a couple more primaries?

"4K ought to be enough for anyone."

But in this case, as the eye can't discern any difference (at reasonable distances) - it really is ?

I don't get why there is this push - pixels sell I guess.

On Desktop monitors you can still see the difference. I have an 28" UHD screen. It's really nice, and text looks a lot better than on the old FHD screen it replaced. However it still looks a little bit worse than my MacBook Pro Retina screen. Which also makes sense when you compare 155dpi to 230dpi. Whether 8k now is necessary or 6k would be totally sufficient - don't know. But I guess it's easier to sell the double resolution.

From the article "A 4K panel of the same physical size is retina at 25 inches. An 8K panel hits that mark at the one-foot mark, but precious few people use a 32-inch display while sitting just 12 inches from the screen."

Personally, I don't really want such a high DPI monitor either, since I use pixel fonts like xterm 6x13 a lot, especially for coding, and they become either unreadably small or blurrily scaled. All antialiasing looks blurry to me, and much of what made me upgrade to an LCD from a CRT many years ago was because they were so sharp you could actually see the corners on the pixels.

If it really is super retina resolution, it can also be used in a manner which simulates a (much) higher colour depth.

Although given the fact that it already covers the entire colour gamut of several different specifications, that probably won't be too useful.

I imagine you could also use it to simulate HDR - but I'd suspect that sources capable of pushing 8K already support it.

All in all, not much point to this comment.

Flashbacks to writing fake mode routines for mode-Q back in the DOS days. Good times.

Please don't actually do this for real though. The tech will catch up so fast it isn't worth the effort.

I'd do it for the fun, rather than the value. There'd also be the possibility for some rather interesting complex simulated modes. Hexagonal pixels, for example.

Can the current generation macbook pro drive one of these?

It only supports DisplayPort 1.2 (x2 on some Thunderbolt 3 ports), so not without using multiple DisplayPort links. HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 (found on modern GPUs) can both drive this though.

> HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 (found on modern GPUs)

That's what should make Tim Cook feel ashamed when reading. His laptops are so obsolete that "modern" doesn't apply. Even for the current gen.

I'll take HDR over 8K.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com