Of course I agree on all of this. Another typical one people don't realize is when they look at pictures of the cosmos and awe at the wonderful colors, except t

Of course I agree on all of this. Another typical one people don't realize is when they look at pictures of the cosmos and awe at the wonderful colors, except those colors don't actually exist. If we had a spaceship that could bring us within range to see the Pillars of Creation with the naked eye, they'd probably look mostly blandish gray and perhaps we might pick up a hint of red, and that's that. The colors in most cases are post-processing photoshop efforts done by artists to colorize astronomical data that falls outside the visible spectrum - infrared in particular. Even in cases where it's done in the visible range, it's a high magnification long exposure which again means it'd look nothing like what you'd "really" see. And yeah, the nitpicking can indeed lead to much better outputs in the future. And also give historians a chance to flex their knowledge of esoterica. And unlike some high production value historical series, it can all be redone with this new input in no time. Of course with new mistakes to then correct, probably endlessly, but there's an asymptote towards perfection we can progress along. When the authors start intentionally breaking things to inject their own politics or biases though, and then presenting that as 'authentic', I'd be the first to be here bitching about it. Well unless the author had some reasonable, if fringe, argument for that being what things were "really" like - history is, in many cases, a recreation based on best guesses, and those guesses end up wrong with a reasonable degree of frequency.