This. The reason that intentional randomness is good (particularly for the statisticians and people that are using these models to make quantitative predictions in this case specifically) is that you know the probability distribution, so you know its biases (if any), and you can therefore say sensible things about the accuracy of your predictions.Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that per se. The issue seems to be that the team writing this code doesn't know the difference between good randomness (the kind you intentionally build in) and bad randomness (the kind that comes from your garbage code being buggy and completely insane).
Your guess is correct. Look at this shit:I guess this highly paid government pro coder never heard of switch case syntax anymore. Talk about adding unnecessary redundancy, I haven't seen the whole doc; But if this is truly the syntax, then that's just bad. I code in C quite a bit, and I'll have to say this is just poor taste.
Doesn't know about switches or enums, apparently.