"Lossless compression uses an algorithm to shrink the image without losing any IMPORTANT data." and the algorithm decides what is important.
Why does it matter? Why does that make Apple deceptive? Lossless compression is as good as no compression, the only difference is the decompression time.
You could store the uncompressed RAW file on a filesystem with built in (lossless) compression, or you could store the losslessly compressed RAW file on a filesystem with no compression. Once you have opened the image in your editor or photo viewer, the bits in that application's memory that you are editing or viewing are identical.
Moreover RAW does not mean 'uncompressed'. It doesn't even mean losslessly compressed. Often RAWs use lossy compression. Both Canon and Nikon RAWs can.
https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lo...
Is it some kind of industrial camera you are talking about maybe?
(Also, try reading the thread you linked and reconcile it somehow with your previous claim that losless compression of raw files is unacceptable)
There is no such definition. Most cameras’ raw files nowadays are losslessly compressed. The compression being lossless means that the bits that were taken out can be reconstructed identically.
It seems you might be confused as to what lossless compression means?
What you quoted is a confusing phrase: "visually lossless" which is in fact a lossy compression. It's like People's Republic which is neither a republic nor is it the People's, it's just a dictatorship.
Finally, JPEG-XL supports both lossy and lossless compression.
You can make a perfect copy of a file, however.