Also, if you want music that was recorded in 5.1 surround sound, sometimes the surround version is only available from lossless sources, while lossy sources sell only the stereo downmix.
> sometimes the lossy versions of downloads have "loudness wars" compressed dynamics
The loudness war has been over for years, and it was precisely due to lossless CD audio that it existed in the first place.
Have you seen the size of disks and network bandwidth recently? There is absolutely no reason to bother with lossy audio compression.
It's also the case that MP3 encoders got better over time, and if you're considering the sound of a 128kbps (or 96kbps) MP3 encoded by the Fraunhofer encoder you got from IRC in the late 90s; it's just not going to be good.
Back before mp3s became ubiquitous, you could rip a CD to .wav files and it would basically sound identical to what was on the CD. But then you’d also be using some 600MB versus the same CD sounding not quite as good but only using like 40MB and at that time that was a lot of disk space to use.
For listening purposes lossy codecs are all capable of being perceptually lossless for trained or untrained listeners, including MP3. MP3 gets a bad rap because low bitrate mp3 does sound awful. 320kbps or higher is sufficient for 99% of listeners, including audiophiles. Most listeners can't pass a double blind study in pristine conditions, let alone average ones.
It's a lot like 192kHz 32 bit recordings. 96kHz audio bandwidth and almost 200dB of SNR has a purpose, but that purpose is not for day to day listening. Your ears, brain, speakers and amplifiers cannot reproduce or perceive the extra information.