Top
Best
New

Posted by qassiov 1/26/2026

Television is 100 years old today(diamondgeezer.blogspot.com)
669 points | 273 commentspage 3
metalman 1/28/2026|
I owned a TV for aproximatly 30 seconds, when an obnoxtious roomy sold me theres for $20, thinking they could still watch there horrid shit, but I promptly threw it off the balcony. Obviously doing this with a screen, but I have zero "accounts" for social media that are not text based, and block everything by default. My basic practice is to resist and avoid asymetric situations that are not defined by a negotiated contract or agreament, up or down.
hackerdood 1/27/2026||
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.
rmason 1/26/2026||
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 1/26/2026|
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.
rmason 1/27/2026||
When I was born my parents bought a TV. Back then it was sold as a way of enhancing the education of children. I remember the early days of the web when the same case was made. Pretty sure you could have predicted it would descend to the lowest common denominator ;<).

The family stayed with black and white until the late seventies. I remember the entire family watching the first moon landing. For the longest time I didn't know whether NASA was recording in color or not ;<).

6510 1/27/2026||
Thanks to TV you will no longer have to travel around the world to attend lectures. From the comfort of your home you can watch professors talk about cutting edge developments. It will be a revolution in education. Everyone will embrace the sciences! We will progress into the information age!

It's not their exact words and I also forgot who said it. It's probably better for them we don't remember.

tibbydudeza 1/26/2026||
Watching Dallas on a Tuesday evening with the entire family gathered in our parents' bedroom with me and brother and sister at the end of the bed on the floor watching the latest schemes of JR Ewing and poor hapless brother Bobby.

We never had the TV set in the lounge - it was meant for special occasions like tea and cake for family gatherings.

We still have a TV but it hardly used - everybody has iPads in the house.

josalhor 1/26/2026||
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 1/26/2026||
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 1/26/2026|||
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 1/26/2026|||
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.

account42 1/27/2026||
"Progress" towards what? The average dystopian sci-fi story where the galaxy is ruled by mega-corporations?
sodafountan 1/27/2026||
SpaceEx has made a ton of progress in space travel, granted it's not an ideal situation with it being a mega corp, but it moved a hell of a lot faster than NASA could have.

Perhaps someday we'll have individualized space flight like we have ownership over our cars and private planes.

Don't know what you're getting at by saying the galaxy will be ruled by mega-corps. Seems pretty democratic so far, and most of the things achieved couldn't have been without organization.

crystal_revenge 1/27/2026||
> 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.

account42 1/27/2026||
I don't think we'll see a decline in technology globally but there will definitely be some regressions in countries that put feel good politics over the energy needs of their citizens.
tosti 1/26/2026||
High definition is nearly 90 years old? I guess their definition of high is quite low by more modern standards.
cf100clunk 1/26/2026||
Analogue interlaced-scan TV systems like PAL and SECAM were actually ''higher'' definition in relation to NTSC by visual line count, although the former's 25Hz refresh rate was noticeable for flickering compared to NTSC's ~30Hz, which was much closer to the human eye's comfort level.

There was a prototype 819-line analogue ''high definition'' system used to record The T.A.M.I. Show in 1964, with excellent results, but the recordings were committed to film for distribution since there was no apparatus for broadcasting it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.A.M.I._Show

There were also experiments by NHK of Japan with analogue HD broadcasting, but digital TV was so close on the horizon that it was mooted.

''High definition'' has been a relative term in the professional TV world all along, but became consumer buzzwords with the advent of digital TV in the early 2000's. Nowadays we know it to mean 720, 1080, or higher lines, usually in progressive scan.

account42 1/27/2026||
> Analogue interlaced-scan TV systems like PAL and SECAM were actually ''higher'' definition in relation to NTSC by visual line count, although the former's 25Hz refresh rate was noticeable for flickering compared to NTSC's ~30Hz, which was much closer to the human eye's comfort level.

Yet motion pictures are still stuck at 24 FPS to this day and there are even people who have strong opinions about this being a good thing.

Also just because NTSC was 29.97 Hz doesn't mean that the video content actually was - almost everything shot on film was actually effectively 23.97 Hz - telecined to 59.94 fields per second but that doesn't actually change the number of unique full frames.

ronsor 1/26/2026|||
Going from 30 lines to 300 lines is a big leap!
anthk 1/26/2026||
Cinema was "HD" by design. So, in some way, 35mm movies are HD quality and predate PAL and NTSC standards.
tosti 1/26/2026||
Sure, but that's not TV.
wglass 1/26/2026||
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 1/26/2026|
There is also a statue in the Presidio https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/27928
oscord 1/27/2026||
1897 Boris Rosing of Russia showed moving image using cathode ray tube.
mrbluecoat 1/26/2026|
Inventor status is a bit murky: https://farnovision.com/wp/no-iconoscope-in-1923/
gcanyon 1/26/2026|
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 1/26/2026||
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 1/27/2026||
> 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.

WalterBright 1/27/2026||
People who do not have a technical education tend to have a less precise definition of things. There's not a great deal of point to arguing semantics.

There were precursors to Edison's light bulb, and people use that to denigrate Edison's achievement. But the technical reality of the Edison bulb is his bulb was practical, and the precursors were just curiosities.

gcanyon 1/27/2026||
> Edison

Sure, and (as far as I know) Edison's basic pattern at discovery was much the same as what we use today (less so these days obviously):

   1. Fill a sealed container with non-reactive gas or vacuum 
   2. String something conductive and heat-tolerant through it
   3. Run enough current through it to make the thing glow
I think the same can be said for the Wright brothers -- perhaps less so for the reasons I gave previously.

I think a system that involves mechanical elements is farther from what most people think of when they think "TV"

More comments...