I was hoping it was just a bad title - but it doesn't appear to be as the founders use the word lossless themselves. It's concerning because it either means th

I was hoping it was just a bad title - but it doesn't appear to be as the founders use the word lossless themselves. It's concerning because it either means they don't actually know what lossless compression is and believe they are doing it - or they are engaging in borderline fraudulent marketing. Given they actually built an impressive product for subset of images it works with, I'm going to assume it isn't the former. I can see their reasoning: "it doesn't appear to be any lower in quality because our brain focuses on the face to determine it, so you get the same effect as lossless compression ergo: lossless compression" - but that still feels rather slimy to me and is a great example of marketing trying to repurpose actual technical terms to fit their product.