Hacker News Reader

From the article:

> (x & c1) | (x & c1) == x & (c1 | c2)

Is this a typo? Shoud the second c1 be c2 instead?

I think it's a typo, and it should be (x & c1) | (x & c2).

Yep, typo, thanks for pointing it out! I'm fixing it.