artefacts

The point is that works of art by great artists are world heritage artefacts, and shouldn't be held in private hands.

We read them as originators of a genre, not as utterly different and unique artefacts of culture.

The artefacts you see may be due to former transfers or to MPs who voted for part of the term only.

Historians have always considered artefacts more valuable the closer they are to the original event.

They just think about a minimal set of artefacts fitting a field of view that would tell what need to be told.

Saccades produce a lot of blurry artefacts that are simply thrown away.

The increase in resolution serves to hide the compression artefacts surprisingly well.

To be aware of how artefacts are made, is to be afraid.

The compression artefacts I think you are thinking of are likely the result of someone not setting the quality parameter appropriately.

There’s something to that, an important difference between information communicated to us by people of that time rather than us knowing by studying less direct artefacts.

Also find it strange to host just binary artefacts on github -- I can't see how that's useful for the author or the users.

Those are just artefacts that vinyl provides.

These "artefacts" that you talk about are no more interesting than tool marks on a sculpture or brush strokes on a painting.

Is there no encoder nor decoder bug that introduces artefacts despite sufficient bitrate?" questions, which for me is worth the increased storage requirements.

The "interpretation of archeological artefacts" kind of science is a lot less durable than the "reproducible double-blind experiment" kind.

Held "in private hands", there's arguably a better chance people will eventually get to see it than if it sits in storage indefinitely - the fate of all but a tiny fraction of artefacts held in major museums.