The % to Desynthesis is broken?

[Claire_Pendragon]

That's not what they said. They said without a generator. i.e., it's not the generator's fault.

I don't beleive you understand how RNGs and Dice work.
They both have a set outcome, that the outside party can not predict w/o knowing all the factors ahead of time.
What they are suggesting is the "Random" with dice, is any different than "Random" from a RNG. (While also saying a Die is not a program called RNG, which is obvious. But I cut that part out, as its not what they were focusing on.)
Random remains Random no matter the source. It wouldn't be random to you, if you knew the outcome. (Something can be random to me, but not to you, at the same time.)

By definition, you must not know the outcome ahead of time, while it still has a predetermined outcome.

Most people think the word random means "It can be any end result, and if you go back in time, redo the event, a different outcome will happen". Which is NOT what random means.
(Last I saw, there currently is no word for such an occurrence, part of the reason people think that's what random means.)

A RNG and a Die work almost identically.
There are preset numbers that can be reached, and a trigger to pick said numbers. Be it a program, or a roll of the die.

You can not roll a normal 6 sided die, and get a 7. THAT would be the type of "random" they are suggesting.

You can get the same result without a generator (as an example with dices)

This statement is true. (Die and RNG fundamentally work the same.)

It is not the RNG, it is the randomnes of chances between 0% and 100%

The RNG determines the outcome, but they are suggesting its not the RNG (Which is "random") but instead, It is "Random". Which is why I said, their statement makes no sense.

[MomomiMomi]

I don't beleive you understand how RNGs and Dice work.

I know how they work, thanks.

The RNG determines the outcome, but they are suggesting its not the RNG (Which is "random") but instead, It is "Random". Which is why I said, their statement makes no sense.

They are saying it's not a fault of the random number generator. It's a fault of the fact that it's random. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

[Claire_Pendragon]

They are saying it's not a fault (random) of the random number generator. It's a fault (random) of the fact that it's random.

Where is the "Random" coming from, if it's not from the RNG? And if the "Random" isn't coming from the RNG, why is it called a RNG?

[MomomiMomi]

Where is the "Random" coming from, if it's not from the RNG? And if the "Random" isn't coming from the RNG, why is it called a RNG?

All randomness inherently has the same "problem". It doesn't matter where it's coming from, you're going to find the same problems. And that is that you can get streaks. But, as said, this is inherent to randomness. Not to a generator. So, "you can get the same results even without a generator."

50% chance of a result from flipping a coin doesn't meant you're guaranteed to get either result 50% of the time. The problem is randomness, not a random number generator. Bolded it for you so maybe you can comprehend the point that is being made. This is the point of the initial thing you quoted, which you misconstrued into something else and said it makes no sense.

[Claire_Pendragon]

All randomness inherently has the same "problem". It doesn't matter where it's coming from, you're going to find the same problems. And that is that you can get streaks. But, as said, this is inherent to randomness. Not to a generator. So, "you can get the same results even without a generator."

50% chance of a result from flipping a coin doesn't meant you're guaranteed to get either result 50% of the time. The problem is randomness, not a random number generator. Bolded it for you so maybe you can comprehend the point that is being made. This is the point of the initial thing you quoted, which you misconstrued into something else and said it makes no sense.

I do understand what they are trying to say, but a RNG is "random" so the only way it could be at fault (of creating non random, rather than creating random), is if it was malfunctioning, and not being "random".
But they agreed prior, that it was creating "Random" results. Which would then make the next statement either makes no sense (Suggesting a RNG is somehow "not true random"), or they were back tracking for some odd reason. (Which would then be more like what you're saying.)

(EDIT: I do want to clarify I'm assuming that they understand when people use the phrase "RNG is RNG", they oddly dont mean Random Number Generator, but that "Random is Random", but if they assume the person they are quoting is being literal, their statement would also be more along the lines of what you said, but it would make less sense, since that person is already stating the RNG is random.)