The original comment missed the point of the chart in the article you link: the increased pixel density is useless __at TV viewing distances__. When you go down to about 2 feet from the screen, 4k is pretty apparent on a 30 inch screen.
A clearer chart is at [1], and the Carlton Bale's original article even has a handy calculator that lets you verify this [2].
Thanks for posting this. It wasn't meant to be a snarky comment, but I did leave out some basic assumptions which I thought were obvious. "Usually" the larger the screen the further away most people will sit from there screen. Right now, I'm on a 21" monitor sitting about 3'2" (already out of the 2'6" for added benefit of a 4K screen if you take this chart as gospel) from the screen. If I went up to a 28" monitor, I would most likely move it back at least 6" so that I don't have to move my head and eyes around too much. That would put the screen about 3'8" from me which is within the range of full benefit of 1080p but outside the range of 4K for this size and viewing distance.
How close are you to your monitor(s) at the exact moment you read this?
I'm not at 2 feet with a smaller dual display, and I'd imagine I'd sit further away with gigantic 30+ monitor(s). I know I do when I use a 27. Others at $work mostly sit at least as far away.
In this area of improved vision, what does it gain you? Did all the old hackers not amount to what they could have been because they perceived some less pixels than there could have been?
I don't think a serious argument can be made on this this front until standards reach at least 16k.