[aerioux]

2/10 would not recommend for technical merit.

8/10 is nice if you want a handwavy human explanation of some rudimentary expectations in crypto

- author spends a few pages thinking about randomness - we have formal definitions of a RNG/PRNG.

- author does basic statistical tests, these seem very unconcerned with actual randomness - i'm not sure what the point is

- author really shouldn't be writing about crypto randomness if they don't do crypto

+1 to higher comment saying reading TAOCP instead.

[krab]

The author specifically mentions he doesn't write about cryptography.

> The idea of what constitutes a good RNG depends on how the RNG is applied. That is why, for example, a generator may be considered high-quality for simulation while being considered unacceptable for cryptography. This chapter looks at tests of statistical quality and does not address tests for cryptographical security.

[pvg]

He’s writing with the assumption you have a sufficiently good uniform PRNG. Then explains how to test whether the code you wrote to achieve a particular distribution does what you think it does.

[Fomite]

"i'm not sure what the point is" - people use random numbers for things besides crypto.