Please, allow me to paraphrase 'pg: pedigree is for suckers.
These data points have absolutely nothing to do with practical, trustworthy crypto standard processes or confidence in their ability to due-diligence systems.
Please allow me to paraphrase dfc, "confusing metrology with crypto is for suckers."
To recap; you started this thread with "Who in their right mind would trust anything NIST offers." I responded by pointing out that there is a very talented group of people working on metrology at NIST and that some of these individuals have been awarded Nobels. What is the connection between trustworthy crypto standards and metrology?
You did not limit your criticism to the crypto group at NIST. Your comment was about "anything" that came out of NIST. I am not sure how I argued your original position by saying that the metrology work that comes out of NIST is top notch. How did I support your claim by arguing and presenting evidence of the opposite?
You presented my argument in argumentative manner as something different. None of this has nothing to do with NIST's reputation for evaluating crypto systems and guiding standards. So please give up trying to say how great their weighs and standards are, because again, a Nobel in physics has nothing to do with crypto.
I just read the bit in your profile about wanting to get to zero karma in 2014. It never occurred to me I was an unwitting conspirator in your race to the bottom. Had I known this I never would have "presented [your] argument in argumentative manner."
Ad hominem attacks and claims of moral superiority also have nothing to do with NIST allowing Dual EC DRBG to be backdoored and this entropy source being suspicious.
These data points have absolutely nothing to do with practical, trustworthy crypto standard processes or confidence in their ability to due-diligence systems.