• pdxfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Mine said 42. I guess the only thing left I’m wondering is what was the question?

  • drspod@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 days ago

    They’ve pissed so many billions of dollars into quantum computing, at least they’re using it for something.

    Did anyone tell them that you can use the noise in a semiconductor junction to produce truly random numbers too? You can buy one for a few pennies.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Isn’t there a truly random generator based on Lava Lamps? Lol

      But I think the issue is the rate at which you can get random numbers

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s probably not truly random, when two centuries from now people have descended a few more levels down. Just like their result

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    Having worked in the field and having seen my fair share of supposedly “true” random numbers, I would really like to see how they would proof this bold claim.

  • AstroLightz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Is it truly random though? If in a specific point in time, the number generated is always the same, then that’s not truly random.

    Absolute true randomness would be a different result every time it is generated in that specific point in time.

    A bit Sci-Fi and probably unrealistic opinion, but it does make me curious about how this kind of randomness could be implemented.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I mean, when you collapse that logic you’re effectively saying random is the same thing as non-deterministic. But they’re different things, because even if an infinitesimally exact moment in time may “always” produce the same result, because the arrow of time only points in one direction, no such deterministic result can ever be replicated, and if the result cannot be replicated, then what is the difference from random?