On Sep 7, 2021, at 4:48 AM, Stefan Zobel
mailto:splitera...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That "influential researcher" is probably Sebastiano Vigna who has indeed
harsh words on PCG: https://pcg.di.unimi.it/pcg.php
That link can also be found on ONeill’s blog, along with her
responses.
On 2021-09-07 13:48, Stefan Zobel wrote:
On this blog entry (year 2017), Lemire is not giving any technical or
scientific argument in favor or against PCG.
He also refers to, and quotes from, a blog entry (year 2015) of an
influential researcher (whose work he respects) suggesting the entry
>
> On this blog entry (year 2017), Lemire is not giving any technical or
> scientific argument in favor or against PCG.
>
> He also refers to, and quotes from, a blog entry (year 2015) of an
> influential researcher (whose work he respects) suggesting the entry has
> harsh words about PCG. The
Hello,
On 2021-09-05 16:43, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 9/3/21 12:35 AM, John Rose wrote:
The reference I’d like to give here is to Dr. Melissa O’Neill’s
website and articles:
I'm quite sceptical. Anyone who says a (non-cryptographic) random-
number generator is "hard to predict" is either
On Sep 5, 2021, at 3:23 PM, John Rose
mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
To increase throughput use vectors or generate more than one random sample per
crank turn. But back to back aes steps are probably always twice the latency of
a single wide multiply. So I think there might be some
On Sep 5, 2021, at 7:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 9/3/21 12:35 AM, John Rose wrote:
>
>> The reference I’d like to give here is to Dr. Melissa O’Neill’s
>> website and articles:
>
> I'm quite sceptical. Anyone who says a (non-cryptographic) random-
> number generator is "hard to predict"
On 9/3/21 12:35 AM, John Rose wrote:
> The reference I’d like to give here is to Dr. Melissa O’Neill’s
> website and articles:
I'm quite sceptical. Anyone who says a (non-cryptographic) random-
number generator is "hard to predict" is either quite naive or in a
state of sin, (;-) and while
On Sep 2, 2021, at 4:35 PM, John Rose
mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
The state of the art for PRNGs (pseudo-random number generators) is
much advanced since ju.Random was written.
Surely at some point we will refresh our APIs that produce random
numbers. In fact, we have added
The state of the art for PRNGs (pseudo-random number generators) is
much advanced since ju.Random was written.
Surely at some point we will refresh our APIs that produce random
numbers. In fact, we have added SplittableRandom, but I think the
state of the art is farther enough along to consider
