The % to Desynthesis is broken?

[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.)