just use PNG. JPEG sucks.
But for pictures, JPEG is in its comfort zone and it's amazing it is still doing comparatively well after the IT equivalent of 150 years. Only now worthy alternatives are starting to emerge (looking at you JPEG XL), not for lack of trying (looking at you WEBP). It's incredible it managed to stay relevant for so long, and while surely patents, sunken cost fallacies, hardware implementations and inertia played a part, none of this would have mattered if it hadn't been pretty good to start with.
Considering that MPEG (and competitors) have evolved due to its deficiencies (the current baseline today is H.264 and not the original version H.261 or even its immediate successor MPEG-1), I'm surprised that JPEG is just showing its deficiencies today and not in 2000. Actually, it's a complement that although multiple file formats were invented to handle lossy pictures but even WebP can't beat JPEG all the time (especially that WebP can only save up to 16k pixels per side while JPEG can handle up to 64k pixels).
Lossy compression is not a bad thing. We need to get over this.
It's widely supported by vendors if you do not need to deal with IE: https://caniuse.com/?search=webp.
WebP is available for macOS 11, even with overlapping versions of Safari, but Apple relies on the OS image library to render some images and they haven't backported WebP supported when they updated Safari.
There is a space for JPEG and for PNG. Here is a good base reference https://www.a2hosting.com/blog/pngs-vs-jpegs/