From: fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com   
      
   Herbert Kleebauer wrote:   
   > On 27.11.2023 16:50, Tom Del Rosso wrote:   
   >>   
   >> In an earlier version it saved a log with a graph output to show the   
   >> pattern. It revealed that the second number wasn't very random   
   >> either.   
   >   
   > But the second value of %random% at least looks much more   
   > random than the first one:   
      
   The second is *slightly* more random. In groups of 3 they just oscillate   
   up and down, with the upper and lower peaks almost equal in every 3rd   
   number.   
      
   Make a graph and it looks like a terrible excuse for randomness.   
      
   Graph the output of random.org and it looks great.   
      
   --   
   Defund the Thought Police   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)