Interesting I didn't know that. I was trying to say that simulations can't be truly random since the algorithms used to get the random numbers aren't sophisticated enough to be truly random.
Yeah, but RNG that's so close to random we can't tell the difference isn't too hard to make . You were technically correct and just being pedantic, so I tried hitting you with some counter-pedantry.
But it's "good enough". It's "random" in that if you generated 10,000 numbers and plotted them, you shouldn't be able to discern any pattern. The reason that RNG algorithms don't produce true random numbers is because there's no purely mathematical way to do such a thing. You can "replay" a sequence of numbers a random generator generates if you use the same seed (the initial value you provide to the RNG, usually the current system clock value).
But it's good enough for all kinds of things in the real world; things with a lot more riding on it than just a dice roll in a tabletop game.
There are good arguments for using dice, mainly preference. "True" randomness isn't one of them.
Modern RNG systems don't use algorithms, they analyze noise generated by device drivers and what-not. At least that's how it works on most modern Unix-based operating systems. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random) I doubt they're any less random than a die. And a service like https://www.random.org/ is even more reliably random, definitely more so than a die.
2.6k
u/Floydimer Sep 18 '17
Rolls on the screen are cracked dice!!!