Always has been.

Microsoft had a choice of opposing the Cloud Act back when. They did not or not really. Now a rather high bill for that comes due.

"algorithmic funds" have been around for a long time. Letting neural nets guess rather than a hand-coded algorithm guess is not much different, conceptually. It's generally the type of investment that "high rollers" select.

Suppose I replied to the wrong posting. How exactly do you think the quote of your posting did get in there? Right. You obviously did not think.

I would say "takes one to know one", but I would not know what being an idiot feels like.

No. It is also called "source without memory". No predictions possible.

Simple: Your head is empty. There is no integer number between 0 and 1. Alternatively, you would have needed to say between 0.0 and 1.0 and you just made a rather gross type error. (Sorry, could not resist. My apologies.)

Ah, no. That is totally worthless for this purpose. For example, the Mersenne Twister MT19997 passes this test perfectly, but with a few KB of its output you can predict all further output. Incidentally, only really bad and outdated PRNGs show such patterns. These days, statistical measurements are essentially useless to prove randomness. But these are Physicists, so they may not understand that. What you need is mathematical proof. Obviously, you can never get that for a physical system because that would need a perfect model of the world.

Which always was a stunt. Most of the randomness in there came from the noise in the camera sensors, not the lava-lamps. Pretty nice stunt though.

The problem is for crypto, you need high per-bit entropy (or rather high per-bit unpredictability under reasonable conditions). But all this means is that you gather, say, 10kBit from your generator and then make a 256 bit key from that using a mixing process. Crypto-hashes are perfect for that. A CPRNG already does something like that for you and you just put in the 10kBit (or more) as seed.

Bias is not a problem. You just gather more and hash it together.

Ah, no. That is about a HW randomness generator that may not actually be one and about Intel using a compromised design that makes it very hard to find out. And then lying about that.

It is not even known to be unpredictable. That is just what the theoretical model claims, not any observation about actual physical reality. If you want quantum-randomness, you can get that for about $10 in hardware, with claims exactly as valid as those from this non-story.

The point is that this is in no way a "first" and that it is in no way "perfect" either.

I thought "criminal" was the new "legal" as far as the DIJ was concerned? Did this person do something to piss off the Dumb?

It comes as absolutely no surprise that when you can execute code on a device, you may be able to gather fingerprints from other code running on that device. You get very little from that though. Basically the only useful case is if one website generates a specific usage pattern, another one may be able to detect that. But you could have gotten the same thing by just having the two sites communicate directly. Yes, there is a covert channel. No, it is not one that matters.