> If the results are reliant on your RNG method I would not settle for less than crypto strength Whenever a post on PRNGs comes up, I'm reminded of this post f

> If the results are reliant on your RNG method I would not settle for less than crypto strength Whenever a post on PRNGs comes up, I'm reminded of this post from a while back about Chrome: https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308c4fd9d https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308... Near the end is a Monte Carlo estimate of Pi using 10^10 iterations: Chrome 3.1418697000 0.0002770464 1301.903s Firefox 3.1416998084 0.0001071548 249.595s Safari 3.1416692728 0.0000766192 7172.207s The first observation is that the error was significantly higher for Chrome. The second is that Safari, which apparently did use a CSPRNG, was an order of magnitude slower. If you let Firefox run that long, I imagine that it would have performed many more iterations, resulting in much lower error.