| ▲ | TremendousJudge 7 days ago |
| This was my first objection as well. However, if most people flip coins like that, then the measurements are valid -- the conclusions are about what average people will do, not a perfect mechanical coin flip. Otherwise you're falling in the no true coin flip fallacy. |
|
| ▲ | Vecr 7 days ago | parent [-] |
| Yeah, if I'm actually forced to use a coin instead of a computer system, I try to ping the thing off the ceiling and at least one wall (not in that order). Hitting various other things is a benefit, not a downside. |
| |
| ▲ | layman51 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Your point about the coin hitting other things to be more unpredictable reminded me of an interesting blog post[1] about generating cryptographically secure random numbers. The memorable part for me is the suggestion of using five coins of different shapes and sizes so they get shaken a consistent number of times in a large cup. [1]: https://blog.sia.tech/generating-cryptographically-secure-ra... | |
| ▲ | hammock 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The guy in the grandparent YouTube video suggests shaking the coin in a closed hand (or better, a box) to randomize the starting side and then transferring it unseen to someone else to flip it Craps is also brought to mind where the dice have to bump the back wall | | |
|
