7 ms·

BBC: How to generate random numbers in 1971 [video]

95 points by sys_64738 7y ago

lexicality 7y ago
ERNIE is on display in the Science Museum in London if you happen to be in the area and want to have a look. It's pretty impressive when you're up close and personal with it. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675/gpo-ernie-i-number-selector https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675...
- JNRowe 7y ago
  I'm not sure if they're still ordering things the way they were when I last visited, but I loved the ~10m walk from abacus to a Babbage Difference Engine too. Plus, if you have a flexible lunch it is a practical visit over a few days at this time of year too. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62243/difference-engine-no-1-difference-engine-portion-only https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62243...
- m-i-l 7y ago
  They've also got the prototype ERNIE mark 1 at the National Museum of Computing[0], next to the Colossus[1] (the first programmable digital computer) given it was designed by some of the same team very shortly afterwards. [0] https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-museum/2019/4/18/honouring-ernie-in-virtual-worlds https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-museum/2019/4/18/honour... [1] https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus
wodenokoto 7y ago
Makes you wonder what the overhead on this was compared to just giving all the bonds an interest rate. A lot of things we do today in IT feels overly expensively done, but looking at this really makes you appreciate how far we’ve come in terms of efficiency even with modern over engineered solutions.
- refset 7y ago
  State-backed application of behavioural economics [0] was the driver behind the RNG overhead, not efficiency: "Premium Bonds were introduced [...] to control inflation and encourage people to save" [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account#Economics_of_prize_linked_savings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account#E... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#History
- LeoPanthera 7y ago
  The randomness of premium bonds are the whole point. If people wanted a flat interest rate they would just buy a normal bond, or some other kind of investment. Premium bonds are so popular precisely because they are unpredictable. It's like buying a lottery ticket, except unlike a lottery ticket, you get your money back if you don't win.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    Alternatively, you could put your money in a normal bond and invest the interest payout into lottery tickets.
    - m-i-l 7y ago
      Its a bit more hassle to do that, and I think you're likely to be worse off for your efforts. The UK 10Y Government Bond currently has a 0.525% yield[0], and the UK National Lottery prize fund is 47.5%[1], meaning in the exceptionally long term you'd turn your 0.525% return into a 0.249% return. If you factor in that the Lottery prize fund is weighted very heavily towards the larger sums that you'll realistically never win, then the likely return within a normal lifetime is probably around half of that. Compare with the Premium Bond's 1.4% return[2]. [0] http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-kingdom/ http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-kingdom/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingd... [2] https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates
lawlorino 7y ago
Looks like they are on v.5 now: > ERNIE 5, the latest model, was brought into service in March 2019, and is a quantum random number generator built by ID Quantique. It uses quantum technology to produce random numbers through light, replacing the former 'thermal noise' method. Running at speeds 21,000 times faster than the first ERNIE, it can produce 3 million winners in just 12 minutes each month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE
jonbaer 7y ago
Longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw
- dang 7y ago
  If someone wants to figure out where the OP's clip begins, we can add a "#t=" and switch to the YouTube URL above. (Normally I'd do that but am a bit rushed at the minute.)
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    OP's vid was made 6 years after the longer one above, not a clip of it.
    - dang 7y ago
      Ah ok. Thanks!
quickthrower2 7y ago
Am I the only one put off by having to view BBC content within Facebook? Why isn't it hosted on the BBC site?
- spectramax 7y ago
  No, you're right. Facebook has lost its brand Goodwill and it is on its way to pillate Instagram as well. I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever sits down, brew some tea and question ruthlessly what his purpose in life is. "What do I want to be remembered as? As a guy that has ruined America, the world in some ways and spreaded false news, kowtow to the advertisers, chasing year over year profits, quarter over quarter revenues, created echo chambers, fucked up politics, sucked up to investors?"
  - mardifoufs 7y ago
    Wow, I think you are maybe a little too hyperbolic here. Facebook didn't "ruin" America. Even if you think america is somehow ruined, how is it Facebook's fault? Why not blame the ISPs, or the hardware manufacturers at that point? Facebook provided a way to connect people, that's it. Scapegoating Facebook for everything is ridiculous and only serves to oversimplify extremely complex social dynamics. If anything echochambers were stronger before Facebook, it's just that people weren't as politically involved. And every single public company tries to maximize profit and revenue, that's their fiduciary duty to the investors. If you are against that, that's fine. But to use it as a criticism against Zuckerberg specifically is... weird?
    - spectramax 7y ago
      I actually think this applies to all CEOs that compromise integrity and ethics for maximization of profits. Mark Zuckerberg is mentioned because I am responding to the GP about Facebook. Let's not pretend Facebook is an impartial processor of information... They are absolutely not. They're arbitrators of information. They sell information for a profit at the expense of privacy. At the expense of societal good. Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Viocom, etc. not just Facebook. Regarding the hyperbole - yep, I realize that. I am here to express my opinions, emotions and speak freely; not to tread political correctness and wimp out on calling things as they are.
bobowzki 7y ago
The method to generate random numbers could be used today... the database, not so much.
- sys_64738 7y ago
  It was interesting to see that the database could handle concurrent queries without the need for any type of locking mechanism.

95 points by sys_64738 7y ago

ERNIE is on display in the Science Museum in London if you happen to be in the area and want to have a look. It's pretty impressive when you're up close and personal with it. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675/gpo-ernie-i-number-selector https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675...

JNRowe 7y ago
I'm not sure if they're still ordering things the way they were when I last visited, but I loved the ~10m walk from abacus to a Babbage Difference Engine too. Plus, if you have a flexible lunch it is a practical visit over a few days at this time of year too. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62243/difference-engine-no-1-difference-engine-portion-only https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62243...
m-i-l 7y ago
They've also got the prototype ERNIE mark 1 at the National Museum of Computing[0], next to the Colossus[1] (the first programmable digital computer) given it was designed by some of the same team very shortly afterwards. [0] https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-museum/2019/4/18/honouring-ernie-in-virtual-worlds https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-museum/2019/4/18/honour... [1] https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus

wodenokoto 7y ago

Makes you wonder what the overhead on this was compared to just giving all the bonds an interest rate. A lot of things we do today in IT feels overly expensively done, but looking at this really makes you appreciate how far we’ve come in terms of efficiency even with modern over engineered solutions.

refset 7y ago
State-backed application of behavioural economics [0] was the driver behind the RNG overhead, not efficiency: "Premium Bonds were introduced [...] to control inflation and encourage people to save" [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account#Economics_of_prize_linked_savings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account#E... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#History
LeoPanthera 7y ago
The randomness of premium bonds are the whole point. If people wanted a flat interest rate they would just buy a normal bond, or some other kind of investment. Premium bonds are so popular precisely because they are unpredictable. It's like buying a lottery ticket, except unlike a lottery ticket, you get your money back if you don't win.
- pintxo 7y ago
  Alternatively, you could put your money in a normal bond and invest the interest payout into lottery tickets.
  - m-i-l 7y ago
    Its a bit more hassle to do that, and I think you're likely to be worse off for your efforts. The UK 10Y Government Bond currently has a 0.525% yield[0], and the UK National Lottery prize fund is 47.5%[1], meaning in the exceptionally long term you'd turn your 0.525% return into a 0.249% return. If you factor in that the Lottery prize fund is weighted very heavily towards the larger sums that you'll realistically never win, then the likely return within a normal lifetime is probably around half of that. Compare with the Premium Bond's 1.4% return[2]. [0] http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-kingdom/ http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-kingdom/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingd... [2] https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates

lawlorino 7y ago

Looks like they are on v.5 now: > ERNIE 5, the latest model, was brought into service in March 2019, and is a quantum random number generator built by ID Quantique. It uses quantum technology to produce random numbers through light, replacing the former 'thermal noise' method. Running at speeds 21,000 times faster than the first ERNIE, it can produce 3 million winners in just 12 minutes each month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE

jonbaer 7y ago

Longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw

dang 7y ago
If someone wants to figure out where the OP's clip begins, we can add a "#t=" and switch to the YouTube URL above. (Normally I'd do that but am a bit rushed at the minute.)
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  OP's vid was made 6 years after the longer one above, not a clip of it.
  - dang 7y ago
    Ah ok. Thanks!

quickthrower2 7y ago

Am I the only one put off by having to view BBC content within Facebook? Why isn't it hosted on the BBC site?

spectramax 7y ago
No, you're right. Facebook has lost its brand Goodwill and it is on its way to pillate Instagram as well. I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever sits down, brew some tea and question ruthlessly what his purpose in life is. "What do I want to be remembered as? As a guy that has ruined America, the world in some ways and spreaded false news, kowtow to the advertisers, chasing year over year profits, quarter over quarter revenues, created echo chambers, fucked up politics, sucked up to investors?"
- mardifoufs 7y ago
  Wow, I think you are maybe a little too hyperbolic here. Facebook didn't "ruin" America. Even if you think america is somehow ruined, how is it Facebook's fault? Why not blame the ISPs, or the hardware manufacturers at that point? Facebook provided a way to connect people, that's it. Scapegoating Facebook for everything is ridiculous and only serves to oversimplify extremely complex social dynamics. If anything echochambers were stronger before Facebook, it's just that people weren't as politically involved. And every single public company tries to maximize profit and revenue, that's their fiduciary duty to the investors. If you are against that, that's fine. But to use it as a criticism against Zuckerberg specifically is... weird?
  - spectramax 7y ago
    I actually think this applies to all CEOs that compromise integrity and ethics for maximization of profits. Mark Zuckerberg is mentioned because I am responding to the GP about Facebook. Let's not pretend Facebook is an impartial processor of information... They are absolutely not. They're arbitrators of information. They sell information for a profit at the expense of privacy. At the expense of societal good. Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Viocom, etc. not just Facebook. Regarding the hyperbole - yep, I realize that. I am here to express my opinions, emotions and speak freely; not to tread political correctness and wimp out on calling things as they are.

bobowzki 7y ago

The method to generate random numbers could be used today... the database, not so much.

sys_64738 7y ago
It was interesting to see that the database could handle concurrent queries without the need for any type of locking mechanism.