[ComputerGuru]

Stay away. The author can't tell the difference between a cryptographically secure hash and a regular one, claims that simply going from 64 to 128 bits will make magically make this cryptographically secure, and then benchmarks it against actually cryptographically secure hash functions (blake3), which are almost necessarily slower than generic hash functions.

Look at meowhash and wyhash instead for the latest and greatest in that field.

[fantastisch]

Can you break this? If no, so your claim is basically hot air, is that right?