Top
Best
New

Posted by qassiov 13 hours ago

Television is 100 years old today(diamondgeezer.blogspot.com)
509 points | 174 commentspage 2
JoeDaDude 7 hours ago|
I don't care to start a debate about who first invented television when, but I remember hearing (conformed by wikipedia [1]) that Leon Theremin, inventor of the musical instrument named after him, demonstrated mechanical television at roughly the same time.

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Theremin

robotmachine 7 hours ago|
Funny you bring Leon Theremin up. I just showed a friend of mine The Thing[0] today.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

augusteo 9 hours ago||
The Baird vs Farnsworth debate reminds me of similar discussions in tech. The first demo rarely becomes the dominant standard.

What strikes me is how fast the iteration was. Baird went from hatboxes and bicycle lenses to color TV prototypes in just two years. That's the kind of rapid experimentation we're seeing with AI right now, though compressed even further.

bilsbie 10 hours ago||
Odd we never adapted to it.

Video has a strange hypnotic power over most people and messages seem to bypass normal mental defenses.

Geste 9 hours ago|
I'd say we did, you need more and more for the same effect.

Here is the first ad ever, for a watch : https://youtu.be/ho2OJfXkvpI

For comparison, here is the latest ad for the best selling watch as of today : https://youtu.be/kdMTc5WfnkM

derektank 8 hours ago|||
In case anyone accuses you of not comparing like to like, even a contemporary Bulova commercial is much more similar to the latter than the former: https://youtu.be/trp7p634qAU?si=fGvyxHp_cayuw5xa
vulcan01 5 hours ago||||
I'm not sure it is valid to use the first ad ever as a basis for comparison. At this time it was a novelty to even have a television – of course an incredibly basic ad would work. And how much do you think they had to pay for an ad on a very new technology? I doubt much.
andai 9 hours ago||||
Everyone's trying too hard to stand out, but honestly the first one would stand out more today, despite being a still image!
chwtutha 5 hours ago||
My thoughts exactly. Apple could probably go viral with the original style of ad today.
wat10000 8 hours ago|||
Wow, I haven't watched any ads for a while and that was pretty jarring.
rmason 4 hours ago||
My late father told me the first time he saw a TV. He was in Ann Arbor, Michigan making a sales call in 1947. When he drove in he noticed there was a huge crowd around a store window but couldn't see what was going on.

After making the call he noticed the crowd was still there so he parked his car and decided to investigate. There was a black and white TV broadcasting a Detroit Tigers game in the window of a radio repair shop. He told me that he came away impressed.

dwe3k 4 hours ago|
I remember a similar story from my father, of people in the small town he was in crowding standing in the front yard of a neighbor, crowding around a picture window to look in at the first TV in town in the mid-1950's.
Deanallen 9 hours ago||
> Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects.

This idea is why I always take media with a grain of salt. The decontexualization makes it easy for people to be reactive towards something, that isn’t logical

Eg “now this is why <insert person or group> is good/evil”

People call me the devils advocate when I point out these nuances but I just think we need to be much more critical when forming and holding opinions.

hnlmorg 8 hours ago||
Your example isn’t what your quote is referring to.

“Now this” is just a segue between unrelated topics.

Eg “and now a word from our sponsors”.

burkaman 7 hours ago|||
Isn't "now this" just a synonym for "moving on" or "next order of business" or "apropos of nothing"? I don't think the concept of jumping to a completely new topic is something TV introduced.
hackerdood 21 minutes ago||
It’s been a bit since I’ve read Amusing Ourselves to Death but I believe in the book the phrase ”Now this” is used disparagingly to refer to the fact that with tv you can go from a horrific news story like a local family being murdered to a completely unrelated story, both in content and emotion in the span of seconds. This doesn’t allow ample time for the viewer to process the former and essentially forces them to turn their brain off as the cognitive dissonance of holding both stories (and more) simultaneously would be impossible.
masfuerte 9 hours ago||
What are you quoting?
criddell 9 hours ago||
Sounds like something from Neil Postman’s excellent book Amusing Ourselves to Death.
marcd35 7 hours ago||
funny story - I had a job recently that installed DirecTV setups for mostly retirement communities. On almost every service call, I'd show up and 95% of the time, without fail, they'd either be watching Fox News, CNN, or CNBC. It was quite depressing to see 24/7 news stations had completely consumed their lives and became the majority of topics of conversation while I was there.

I eventually quit the job. I decided I didn't want to be a part of making our society worse by installing these devices that were causing manufactured outrage, hate, and selective truth telling.

Soon after I left, I found a book while thrifting that came out in 1978 called "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander. I laughed at the title and couldn't believe someone was already arguing for the detriments of TV before I was born. It's very well written and the points he makes are still relevant today.

From the wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimina...

Mander believes that "television and democratic society are incompatible" due to television removing all of society's senses except for seeing and hearing. The author states that television makes it so that people have no common sense which leads to...being "powerless to reject the camera's line of sight, reset the stage, or call on our own sensory apparatus to correct the doctored sights and sounds the machine delivers".

Mander's four arguments in the book to eliminate television are:

1. that telecommunication removes the sense of reality from people,

2. television promotes capitalism,

3. television can be used as a scapegoat, and

4. that all three of these issues negatively work together.

0PingWithJesus 6 hours ago|
Reminds me of Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985), in which he argues that TV as a medium is fundamentally incapable of producing anything other than entertainment. So things like news, political discussion, or any other type of educational programming can only exist on TV as a nutrition-less pantomime of the real thing.
mjevans 59 minutes ago||
Education, real education, can be made entertaining. Mythbusters and Connections (I believe it was called) both qualify. As do some historic documentaries.
josalhor 8 hours ago||
On the one hand I look at some tech lifecycles and feel everything moves so slow (cars, energy and train infrastructure etc..). And then I look at other stuff and I cannot phantom that someone who was born 100 years ago saw a TV (or media electronic screen) from conception to modern miracle. As someone in his 20s I can't imagine what I'll see in the next 80 years!
jibolash 8 hours ago||
Unfortunately technological progress is not always exponential. An human landed on the moon 56 years ago and people back then thought space travel would be a routine thing today so it'll be interesting to see how things go
WalterBright 5 hours ago|||
I had a look at the Gemini capsule in the Smithsonian a few years ago. I was shocked at how primitive the controls looked.
sodafountan 7 hours ago|||
It's certainly not routine, but I'd say the privatization of the space industry that's unfolded over the last few decades is significant progress.

When I get depressed and look out at the world, I'm actually amazed at what I'm living through—the internet, space travel, electric and autonomous cars, smartphones. It's really amazing.

crystal_revenge 2 hours ago||
> As someone in his 20s I can't imagine what I'll see in the next 80 years!

All of these rapid technological advancements are a function of tremendous increases in energy available .

We passed peak conventional oil years ago and only see proven reserves increase because we redefined 'shale oil' as included under proven reserves. But shale oil has much lower EROEI than traditional oil. We can already see geopolitics heating up before our eyes to capture and control what remains, but to continue to advance society we need more energy.

On top of this we are just now starting to feel the impacts of the effects of the byproducts of this energy usage: climate change. What we are experiencing now is only a slight hint of what is to come in recent years.

In the next 80 years we'll very likely see an incredible decline in technology as certain complex systems no longer have adequate energy to maintain. The climate will continue to worsen and in more extreme ways, while geopolitics melts down in a struggle for the last bits of oil and fossil fuels (interestingly these combine in the fight for Greenland because a soon-to-be ice free arctic holds lots of oil, not enough to advance civilization the way it has been going, but enough to keep yours running if you can keep everyone else away).

I sincerely suspect within the next 80 years we will see the full collapse of industrial civilization and very possibly the near or complete extinction of the human race. You can see the early stages of this beginning to unfold right now.

mrbluecoat 6 hours ago||
Inventor status is a bit murky: https://farnovision.com/wp/no-iconoscope-in-1923/
gcanyon 6 hours ago|
The interesting question (to me) is how directly a line can be drawn from the original invention to what we in modern times think of as “the thing”?

As an example, the Wright brothers built a biplane that had wing warping instead of ailerons and a canard design. That bears little resemblance to most modern airplanes, but people have little trouble crediting it as “the invention of the airplane” —- questions of whether the Wrights were first or not notwithstanding.

Can ”TV” be thus simplified so that an electromechanical device with spinning discs qualifies?

WalterBright 5 hours ago||
The invention of the "airplane" is just a simplified term for "controlled and sustained powered flight".

Which the Wrights did with both controlled and powered in the 1903 Flyer.

(The Wrights invented the first 3-axis control system, and designed & built the first aviation engine capable of sustained flight.)

While the Wrights were first, by several years, its invention was inevitable.

gcanyon 3 hours ago||
> The invention of the "airplane" is just a simplified term for "controlled and sustained powered flight"

Maybe? But most people think of it as "invented the airplane," and the two terms have different connotations in common use. Likewise, the title here says "television," not "real-time capture, transmission, and display of moving images" -- and similarly, I think the terms have different connotations.

ChrisMarshallNY 7 hours ago||
Love the name of the blog!

I think that LCD screens, huge digital bandwidth, and CCD sensors, have turned video ("television"), into a vast new landscape.

I'm old enough to remember putting foil on the rabbit-ears...

wglass 9 hours ago|
Related to discussion on Baird vs. Farnsworth, there's a plaque honoring Farnsworth on Green Street in San Francisco. https://noehill.com/sf/landmarks/cal0941.asp
afrnswrth 5 hours ago|
There is also a statue in the Presidio https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/27928
More comments...