Comment on World's smallest particle accelerator is 54 million times smaller than the Large Hadron Collider, and it works

• luckystarr@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There are easier ways to get the same level of randomness.

  source

  • salton@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Like a webcam aimed at a wall of lava lamps.

    source
  • pensa@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Much easier ways. For example lava lamps

    source
  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The same level as locally truly random? What provides that same level of random?

    source

    • Nomad@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Proovably secure PRNGs are as secure as TRNGs. All you need is enough entropy and that you can get from plenty of sources.

      A single chip you rely on for entropy is a problem as you cant look inside. Therefore you cant trust it fully.

      source

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        While they may be as secure, I would not call that the same level of random. I’ll agree they are equal in almost every use case, but truly random is still “more random” in comparison.

        Though I’ll concede that if it can’t be proven to be truly random, it’s not of much use.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • hansl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Honestly you won’t be able to build a device with this thing in it for cheaper than alternatives. For home usage it’s about 50-100$. And a good enough PCI card like Quantis will be 3000$ with a bandwidth of 240Mbps.

      And that’s not even discussing bandwidth. In most cases bandwidth (number of random bits generated per second) is the limiting factor in usage. You want them to be fast enough that when you need a number you’re not waiting for it.

      source

      • John_Hasler@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes. It isn’t hard to generate random numbers in hardware. It is hard to generate them very fast. This device would not help solve that problem.

        source