Quick Test for whether you need a quantum random number generator:
1. Write down a random number on a piece of paper (9 digits should do).
2. Set the paper on fire, capturing the smoke and ashes.
3. Hand the smoke and ashes to the person trying to sell you the quantum random number generator.
4. Ask them to tell you your number. Be careful to allow only 1-4 guesses, otherwise you need more digits.
5. If they can tell you your number, buy the quantum random number generator. If they can't, don't.
@sophieschmieg lol, so I googled one of these products and ... they seriously expect me to believe a random number generator based on a beam splitter and a pair of detectors is somehow more secure than one based on thermal noise or avalanche noise?
ROTFL
@recursive @sophieschmieg wait, what's the use case for these? How is current true RNG inferior?
@astraluma @sophieschmieg These people claim random number generators based on classical physics are more prone to biasing the randomness based on manipulating the surrounding environment https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/overview/
They're not theoretically incorrect, but that kind of thing is largely mitigated in typical implementations. And I'd be willing to guess that *their* kind of hubris leads to more severe implementation errors in practice :)
@recursive @astraluma @sophieschmieg “The very best Entropy”
These people need to meet my Husky.
@keko @recursive @astraluma hence me challenging them to Laplace demon a piece of paper from the ashes
@sophieschmieg @keko @recursive @astraluma
Shouldn't the text involve also access to stray emissions of the generation process? (I don't expect that to change the outcome.)
@robryk @keko @recursive @astraluma sure, they can have all the photons, if they can catch them.