What does randomness look like?

Before clicking the link, the title reminded me of an article I had read a few years ago. The article mentioned how true randomness can be prone to heavily favoring one outcome for a long stretch; while &quot;faked&quot; randomness will usually try to just look random, rather than being so.<p>Lo and behold, this is the same article I was thinking of. It seems some of the pictures are not loading now—no surprise, as it was published in 2012.<p>For a view of this article with working pictures, check out the archived version of it: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140803073404/http://www.wired.com/2012/12/what-does-randomness-look-like" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20140803073404&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired....</a>

This script linked to in the article is very interesting. It shows random and non-random distributions side by side:<p><a href="http://bl.ocks.org/roryokane/4358325" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bl.ocks.org&#x2F;roryokane&#x2F;4358325</a><p>I used to play Catan a lot with a group of engineers. I noticed that even their mathematical intuitions of randomness were off. For instance, one would try to shuffle the deck so that Knight cards were spaced evenly apart. They did it in the name of randomness, even though their deck manipulation was the opposite of random.

It looks like nothing at all... nothing at all... nothing at all...