On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:56 AM Dimitrij Mijoski via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 10:15 -0500, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 9:51 AM Dimitrij Mijoski via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is just one more argument that that "test", i.e. distribution of
> > > the first outputs after seeding, is not a good test for the quality
> > > of any PRNG. The P in PRNG has meaning, of course they are not
> > > perfect, they are pseudo-random. They are designed to give uniformity
> > > after multiple calls after seeding. See my previous comment here
> > > https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/2021/11/3354.php
> >
> > The idea that you shouldn't expect reasonable randomness from an RNG
> > until you prime the pump by extracting some number of random bits from
> > it is ridiculous. That's the *entire point* of seeding the RNG: to
> > prime the pump so that you can get good randomness from the first bit
> > you extract.
>
> But there is good randomness, who said it isn't good? Do you trust a
> random article on the internet with a lot of unproven claims and
> without a method to replicate their false results?


I already identified the issue — and replicated Melissa's results — in my
first reply to you. Please, tone it down.

–Arthur