There&#x27;s a difference between cryptographic security and quality. Cryptographically secure generators typically have (empirically verified) high quality from a statistical perspective, but they&#x27;re not a general solution for all purposes. They&#x27;re relatively slow, you can&#x27;t seed them, and they don&#x27;t typically have rigorous mathematical proofs of certain characteristics like equidistribution and cycle length.<p>The article doesn&#x27;t suggest Math.random() should be cryptographically secure (although that is an option). Rather, it&#x27;s a critique of the algorithm that&#x27;s being used. There are better algorithms with no drawbacks that produce sequences you can safely assume have a statistically random distribution (even if the sequence is predictable and is therefore not cryptographically secure).