I've run into many statisticians who think Stark and Ottoboni's worries about pseudorandomness are pedantic. But I always ask them which part of statistics they think is not pedantic. Are those 50 page proofs of the asymptotic normality of standard errors not pedantic? What about all of the detailed calculations of the efficiency of maximum likelihood estimators of parameters from distributions we know are hypothetical? Every statistician argues their part of statistics is the one that needs excessive attention. The one thing I'll give Stark and Ottoboni: they describe several ways to write better pseudorandom number generators if needed.
From https://www.argmin.net/p/sounds-like-noise-to-me