4 ms·
I stumbled over marsaglias usenet post before. One thing this article didn't discuss is choosing a seed, I think humans are better at coming up with a single r
by camel-cdr 3y ago
I stumbled over marsaglias usenet post before.
One thing this article didn't discuss is choosing a seed, I think humans are better at coming up with a single random number than with a sequence of random numbers, but I still like to incorporate some "randomness" from the environment.
You can e.g. add the count of something you don't know the count of until you count it to the seed. For example: floor tiles in a room, books with the color red in a book shelve, ... you can obviously also throw a coin or something like that, but that's a more involved action.
If you are really dedicated, then you could mix in some environmental randomness after ever n iterations.
- aredox 3y agoA good seed under 60 is simply the second or minutes when you check the time.
- kqr 3y agoAnd as long as you don't need numbers at a high rate, you can just use the seed as the random number. I rarely need more than one in sequence so I just use the second hand. Come to think of it, I rarely need to choose between more than 10 alternatives so it's realistic to get at least two somewhat random alternatives per minute out of this idea.
- rjmunro 3y agoI just looked at my clock; it was 10:59. So I tried 5 + 9 * 6 = 5 + 54 = 59. That doesn't seem right. Then it was 00. That doesn't work either...
- ajb 3y agoIf we're talking about something what can be done by a human, then Othello counters or coins are each 1 bit. If not, then a hash of a new photo is probably simplest
- taneq 3y agoI like 4, that's pretty random.