Hacker News Reader

Comment by robinsoh | Hacker News Reader

> The volumes are different because the technology is locked by a company that doesn't innovate nor mass produce their tech.

Citation needed. I'd love to see some evidence backing up your incredibly confident claim.

> Some companies in China, that ignore the patents, manage to produce 20 fps 23" eink screen. Add color to it and it's the perfect screen for a lot of computer work.

I've never heard of that. Please share some evidence for this please. 20 fps electrophoresis? In my opinion, that's physically impossible unless the screen is 0.1mm thick. How did they escape Q = vA ?

View on HN

"Citation needed" is not a nice quip. You're responding to a forum comment, not reviewing a paper.

It's fine to be dubious of a claim, and it's fine to ask politely for sources or rationales. Just be nice.

> It's fine to be dubious of a claim, and it's fine to ask politely for sources or rationales. Just be nice.

I was not aware that "citation needed" is considered impolite. It is something I use at work a lot when interacting with colleagues. My apologies, I'll refrain from that in future.

I would be willing to bet your colleagues at work would find it annoying and impolite too.

Perhaps it is a difference in 'climate' between working in a science based industry where we often get challenged on our data versus software development industry. Maybe I've spent too long in academia where 'citation needed' is an indicator of interest in my topic and considered a good thing.

I didn’t consider citation needed to be a “mean” thing to say.

I disagree, it is in fact a very polite and fair minded way to respond to claim you find dubious. If anything they were being more polite than later in the comment when they suggested the claimed results should be impossible (though that's still a reasonable claim to make if they beleive it to be true).

Rather than saying the equivalent to "I think this cannot be true", a request for citation merely means "I am interested in this claim and would like to know the source" (even if phrased more tersely). The content is more indicative of the intent than the phrasing, and requesting a citation is not an accusation at all, it is a request for a source for further research.

>>it is in fact a very polite and fair minded way to respond to claim you find dubious.

Citation needed.

I assume they're referring to Onyx and Dasung[1]. Not sure if it's actually 20fps (videos I've found look to be more in the low teens by my eye), and I believe they're making a lot of trade-offs around ghosting and stuff to achieve those frame rates. Also no idea what their licensing situation is.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRvlJ2HjH30

E-Ink lists Dasung's monitor as one of their showcase products so that supposition is incorrect: https://www.eink.com/Laptop-Peripherals.html?type=applicatio...

https://youtu.be/RRvlJ2HjH30?t=250

Yes, that's a Dasung Paperlite. That's a regular E-Ink screen from the same manufacturer, not as you wrote "Some companies in China, that ignore the patents, manage to produce 20 fps 23" eink screen. ".

That's not 20 fps. That's A2 mode which is a 1 bit mode and is a non-stable state so it will decay. I'd recommend you read the user manual about how that works.

A2 should be 8fps, 125ms.

How does the 'Q = vA' law you mention apply, to reason on an example, to the case of A2, as a limiter to the rate?

> A2 mode which is a 1 bit mode and is a non-stable state so it will decay

It makes little sense to use A2 on a long-lasting render - nonetheless, I suppose the decay time will be relatively long (I have never notice an A2 dot change state...).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com