Note in readme

Author: martinothamar

README.md

@@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ Iterations = `double`s per op.
 
 There is likely overhead in capturing hardware counters, so these should be more "correct"
 
+NOTE - MWC256 is likely poorly implemented (it is supposed to be faster). As seen in the instrumented benchmark below there are a lot of branch mispredictions.
+This is clear from the generated assembly atm but I'm not sure why those branching instructions are generated. `UInt128` support is pretty new
+so maybe there are some inefficiencies there.
+
 ![Scaling iterations](/img/perf-scaling.png "Scaling iterations")
 
 #### With hardware counters

src/Fast.PRNGs/Fast.PRNGs.csproj

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
         <PackageRequireLicenseAcceptance>false</PackageRequireLicenseAcceptance>
         <PackageProjectUrl>https://github.com/martinothamar/Fast.PRNGs.NET</PackageProjectUrl>
         <RepositoryUrl>https://github.com/martinothamar/Fast.PRNGs.NET</RepositoryUrl>
-        <PackageTags>csharp prng vectorization simd pseudorandom</PackageTags>
+        <PackageTags>csharp prng vectorization simd pseudorandom random random-number-generators</PackageTags>
         <RepositoryType>git</RepositoryType>
         <Authors>Martin Othamar</Authors>
         <Copyright>Copyright 2023 Martin Othamar</Copyright>