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@lists.isocpp.org> 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?