you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 2 years ago

peer reviewed properly

Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006.

If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.

  • source
  • parent