
BBC: How to generate random numbers in 1971 [video] - sys_64738
https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/videos/1016305638735073/
======
lexicality
ERNIE is on display in the Science Museum in London if you happen to be in the
area and want to have a look.

It's pretty impressive when you're up close and personal with it.

[https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675...](https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62675/gpo-
ernie-i-number-selector)

~~~
m-i-l
They've also got the prototype ERNIE mark 1 at the National Museum of
Computing[0], next to the Colossus[1] (the first programmable digital
computer) given it was designed by some of the same team very shortly
afterwards.

[0] [https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-
museum/2019/4/18/honour...](https://www.tnmoc.org/notes-from-the-
museum/2019/4/18/honouring-ernie-in-virtual-worlds)

[1] [https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus](https://www.tnmoc.org/colossus)

------
lawlorino
Looks like they are on v.5 now:

> ERNIE 5, the latest model, was brought into service in March 2019, and is a
> quantum random number generator built by ID Quantique. It uses quantum
> technology to produce random numbers through light, replacing the former
> 'thermal noise' method. Running at speeds 21,000 times faster than the first
> ERNIE, it can produce 3 million winners in just 12 minutes each month.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERNIE)

------
jonbaer
Longer version:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOAfbb5D3Dw)

~~~
dang
If someone wants to figure out where the OP's clip begins, we can add a "#t="
and switch to the YouTube URL above.

(Normally I'd do that but am a bit rushed at the minute.)

~~~
hombre_fatal
OP's vid was made 6 years after the longer one above, not a clip of it.

~~~
dang
Ah ok. Thanks!

------
wodenokoto
Makes you wonder what the overhead on this was compared to just giving all the
bonds an interest rate.

A lot of things we do today in IT feels overly expensively done, but looking
at this really makes you appreciate how far we’ve come in terms of efficiency
even with modern over engineered solutions.

~~~
LeoPanthera
The randomness of premium bonds are the _whole point_. If people wanted a flat
interest rate they would just buy a normal bond, or some other kind of
investment.

Premium bonds are so popular precisely because they are unpredictable. It's
like buying a lottery ticket, except unlike a lottery ticket, you get your
money back if you don't win.

~~~
pintxo
Alternatively, you could put your money in a normal bond and invest the
interest payout into lottery tickets.

~~~
m-i-l
Its a bit more hassle to do that, and I think you're likely to be worse off
for your efforts. The UK 10Y Government Bond currently has a 0.525% yield[0],
and the UK National Lottery prize fund is 47.5%[1], meaning in the
exceptionally long term you'd turn your 0.525% return into a 0.249% return. If
you factor in that the Lottery prize fund is weighted very heavily towards the
larger sums that you'll realistically never win, then the likely return within
a normal lifetime is probably around half of that. Compare with the Premium
Bond's 1.4% return[2].

[0] [http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-
kingdom/](http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/united-kingdom/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingd...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_\(United_Kingdom\))

[2] [https://www.nsandi.com/interest-rates](https://www.nsandi.com/interest-
rates)

~~~
quietbritishjim
This was very interesting thanks! I was especially surprised that the
effective interest rate of Premium Bonds is 1.4%, which is pretty good
compared to today's savings rates in the UK. When I last checked (quite a few
years ago) Premium Bonds were quite a poor deal.

It's a little unfair that you said "the Lottery prize fund is weighted very
heavily towards the larger sums that you'll realistically never win" but don't
qualify that the effective interest rate of Premium Bonds also includes some
high value but unlikely prizes. I wonder what the interest rate is for 50th
percentile prize winners.

Edit: This page[1] on MoneySavingExpert shows the median (50th percentile)
Premium Bond winnings are 1.16% over a year if you have £15,000 invested, and
are 0%(!) if you have £1,000 invested. They also have a winnings
calculator[1], which shows that median probabilities don't compound over time
in the way you'd expect: for £1,000 over 5 years the median return is £50,
which is equivalent to 0.98% compound annual interest. (It may actually be
fractionally higher because I don't think the calculator assumes you re-invest
the winnings in Premium Bonds.)

[1] [https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-
bonds/](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds/)

[2] [https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds-
calc...](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/premium-bonds-calculator/)

~~~
m-i-l
That sounds right. Using the latest figures I can find online, the lowest
Premium Bond prize (£25) was £75,665,750 of the total £88,099,800 prizes[0],
i.e. over 85%, whereas lowest National Lottery prize (free ticket worth £2)
was £2,306,736 of the total £19,891,729 prizes[1], i.e. under 12%. So if you
calculate on only ever winning the lowest prizes, the Premium Bond's not too
bad notional return is likely to be not that much worse in practice, but the
unfavourable distribution towards the headline grabbing large jackpots means
the National Lottery's very bad notional return is likely to be significantly
worse in practice.

[0] [https://www.nsandi-adviser.com/july-2018-premium-bonds-
prize...](https://www.nsandi-adviser.com/july-2018-premium-bonds-prizes)

[1] [https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/results/lotto/draw-
histor...](https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/results/lotto/draw-
history/prize-breakdown/2516)

------
quickthrower2
Am I the only one put off by having to view BBC content within Facebook? Why
isn't it hosted on the BBC site?

~~~
spectramax
No, you're right. Facebook has lost its brand Goodwill and it is on its way to
pillate Instagram as well.

I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever sits down, brew some tea and question
ruthlessly what his purpose in life is.

"What do I want to be remembered as? As a guy that has ruined America, the
world in some ways and spreaded false news, kowtow to the advertisers, chasing
year over year profits, quarter over quarter revenues, created echo chambers,
fucked up politics, sucked up to investors?"

~~~
mardifoufs
Wow, I think you are maybe a little too hyperbolic here. Facebook didn't
"ruin" America. Even if you think america is somehow ruined, how is it
Facebook's fault? Why not blame the ISPs, or the hardware manufacturers at
that point?

Facebook provided a way to connect people, that's it. Scapegoating Facebook
for everything is ridiculous and only serves to oversimplify extremely complex
social dynamics. If anything echochambers were stronger before Facebook, it's
just that people weren't as politically involved.

And every single public company tries to maximize profit and revenue, that's
their fiduciary duty to the investors. If you are against that, that's fine.
But to use it as a criticism against Zuckerberg specifically is... weird?

~~~
spectramax
I actually think this applies to all CEOs that compromise integrity and ethics
for maximization of profits. Mark Zuckerberg is mentioned because I am
responding to the GP about Facebook.

Let's not pretend Facebook is an impartial processor of information... They
are absolutely not. They're arbitrators of information. They sell information
for a profit at the expense of privacy. At the expense of societal good.
Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Viocom, etc. not just Facebook.

Regarding the hyperbole - yep, I realize that. I am here to express my
opinions, emotions and speak freely; not to tread political correctness and
wimp out on calling things as they are.

~~~
horomeme
All makes plenty of sense to me. I appreciate you not holding back. I think
these things are rather plain to see, and I’m confident they will go down in
history similarly.

------
bobowzki
The method to generate random numbers could be used today... the database, not
so much.

~~~
sys_64738
It was interesting to see that the database could handle concurrent queries
without the need for any type of locking mechanism.

