Slashdot Mirror
Algorithm Glitch Voids Outcome of US Green Card Lottery
jayminer writes "Results for the United States Diversity Visa Lottery for 2012 were declared void due to a programming glitch in the random selection algorithm. At first, the results were published as promised on May, 1st. Then, on May, 6th, the results were withdrawn with the web site claiming to experience 'technical difficulties.' Today (May, 13th), it is declared that the results are invalid due to an algorithm glitch; the computer program has been fixed and the lottery will be re-run. The final results are expected to be published July 15th."
Unexpected results are not neccessarily random. You may just have missed some bug that generates very predictable results which were just unexpected because you didn't knew about that bug.
Still, true randomness is hard. While I don't think this applies here, randomness also includes random clusters. People accept these if the process that generates the randomness is very obvious random, but do the same with a computer or by sieving through large amounts of data and they see patterns and don't accept these as random anymore.
Example: There have been discussions about clusters of cases of certain kinds of cancer around nuclear reactors. Can't be random, you think. Well, if you look at many different kinds of cancer and check the distribution of those you'll find random clusters for one or more of them. One of those clusters may be found around a reactor. May still be random, but nobody will ever believe you. In fact, if you sieve the data fine enough and have enough reactors and NONE of these clusters coincide with a reactor, the conclusion would be that nuclear reactors PROTECT against cancer. But explain that to people.
Other example: Apple introduced random playlists on iPods years ago. Now people noticed that some songs got played more than once before all others were played. Can't be random! There's a bug! Well, no. Still, Apple had to modify their software to make the choice actually LESS random (by have no song being played twice) to make it appear "really" random to the users.
Randomness is hard and can be spooky.
Technically, the results were indeed random.
No, technically your conflating two different things, the random glitch, and the non-random output caused by the glitch.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Random numbers should not be generated with a method chosen at random The Art of Computer Programming, Vol 2 (emphasis in original)