0
2

[–] varialus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The picture that was actually random looked much more random to me from the start. However, it seems like it would be possible to get a random output that doesn't look random if you were to randomly place the dots enough times, so this seems more like a way to show a probability that something is random, but not determine definitively whether something is random.

0
2

[–] tame 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's actually pretty common for properly random images to look 'clumpy' like that, so much so that quite a lot of effort in video games which use procedural content goes into tweaking the distribution of 'random' data so it has the right degree of uniformity.

0
1

[–] littul_kitton 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Printing too. If you want to represent gray using tiny black dots, you have to avoid unsightly clumping.

0
1

[–] toats [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah I think the visual comparison thing works more on people who haven't much played with randomness and seen the unexpected 'patterns'. It more exploits people's naïve expectations of randomness.