[mrob]

I understand perfectly that "visually lossless" was chosen to emotionally manipulate people by triggering positive associations with the word "lossless", despite not actually being lossless, or even transparent. Language is lossy, but that does not excuse corporations twisting it further in their attempts to exploit you.

[coder543]

Who is being exploited in this situation? I've never heard of anyone successfully selling a product because DSC is "visually lossless". It's a short explanation for a complicated technology, on the rare occasion that anyone googles DSC to try to understand what it is.

Your continued use of inflammatory and frankly incorrect language isn't helping your case. If this is "exploitative" marketing language that is "lying", you should file a case with some consumer protection body. You have also failed to demonstrate how you would communicate the overwhelming effectiveness of DSC that the study showed.

[mrob]

"High fidelity lossy" would be an honest name.

[coder543]

Sure, that name would have been fine too.

I don’t think “honesty” is an issue at play here either way, as I have discussed in great detail (and with many examples that you surely have encountered), given how people (unfortunately?) communicate in the real world.

If the study had shown something substantially different (or if people online were frequently having bad experiences), I would totally have been onboard with calling it marketing overreach and lies.