Can't help but notice that the "hut" is pretty much exactly 8x8 pixels in size, which is the size of a JPEG block. Makes me wonder if an unlucky bit flip in the

Can't help but notice that the "hut" is pretty much exactly 8x8 pixels in size, which is the size of a JPEG block. Makes me wonder if an unlucky bit flip in the image data could produce an image like that. Or just unlucky lossy compression. I have no reason to believe the image original images is actually a JPEG, though the image in the article does look like a JPEG. Just an observation I couldn't help mentioning!