Original source of `(seed * 9301 and 49297) % 233280` random algorithm? (2014)
This is what bugs me about the stackexchange model. Most of the comments are guesses by people who really don't know. The "correct" answer doesn't explain anything, it just points to some sources. The highest ranked comment that comes closest, attempts to explain the nature of the numbers (the modulous is the period, and the primes stretch out the cycle) and fires off a link to wikipedia.<p>Then it appears on HN, and more people half guessing, but better content in general.<p>Based on yesterday's post, BYTE magazine would have actually given an answer with both why and how.<p>EDIT: Granted, the link DOES go to Wikipedia which has a great explanation, but in general, providing a link and not answer is a poor model because links decay so quickly.