It's funny how age of an event is used to justify that something should be stopped. So sunset Google Search too? It seems to be a Google thing to do: randomly start and discontinue things without much thought.
Goodbye to Google Code Jam
51–60 of 147 posts
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#52Topcoder will also be having their final TCO this year: https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/113201 Google Code Jam and TCO were the two biggest onsite competitive programming event that's not targeted at students. This is a huge blow to the sport.
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#53Topcoder will also be having their final TCO this year: https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/113201 Google Code Jam and TCO were the two biggest onsite competitive programming event that's not targeted at students. This is a huge blow to the sport.
Wow topcoder too? What a shame. End of an era
they don't mention why it's ending?
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#54Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#55I guess Google really isn't the company it used to be.
Oh yes, while everything and everyone is exactly same as they were 20 years back.
Most technical people at megacorps these days are incentivized to show how quantifiably influential their work was, even if it's 110% BS.
Meanwhile, apps get shittier, open source contributions are bloated or useless, and generally there's no incentive to refactor or fix anything unless it's broken today.. and then to only fix it however without considering reducing the mountain of tech debt.
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it a joke? It is like any other sport or Olympiad, it involves solving faster, accurately and potentially of problems you haven't seen before. There is no direct correlation between competitive programming like CodeJam/ICPC and leetcode. They don't target the same audience at all. I couldn't get to the top of these but I do admire people who do, they are some of the absolutely brilliant people I have worked wi…
And just like any other sport it has virtually no usefulness in real life
Yeah who needs well-being, a healthy back or cardiovascular health anyway?
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#57Looks like the google hashcode is gone as well. Sad.
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#58Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no direct correlation between competitive programming like CodeJam/ICPC and leetcode What is the difference that you see between these sorts of algorithm puzzle contests? Is there some reason that people who are good at one contest would be bad at another, similar contest?
The main difference is the audience of both is different. Leetcode works like this. Company A is asking these 100 questions with this frequency; let me solve these questions so that when I encounter these in the interview I can solve them then. The whole premise of Leetcode is on giving a question bank to what is already being asked. The aim is to clear the base bar a company has set.
It makes sense why someone who is good at LC via pattern recognition might not be as good at competitive programming. However, it’s not clear why the reverse would be true. Surely someone good at solving unencountered algorithmic problems would be good at LC?
Re: Goodbye to Google Code Jam
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As GPT-4 had been shown to outperform humans on the coding competition tasks On the same frontpage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35297067 Food for thought. Also by their own paper it has only a codeforces rank of 392 which is below 5th percentile.
Also a cute prompt I saw on the same twitter thread ``` This is a variant of the monty hall problem: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. IMPORTANT: All the doors are transparent. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who clearly knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to…
GPT-4 responses.
-- First variant --
Since all the doors are transparent in this variant of the Monty Hall problem, you can already see what is behind each door when making your initial choice. Therefore, there is no need to rely on probability or switching strategies to maximize your chances of winning the car.
In this case, you simply choose the door with the car visible behind it. The host's action of opening another door and offering you the chance to switch doesn't provide any new information or change the odds, as you can already see the contents of each door.
-- Explicit variant --
In this particular case, since the doors are transparent and you can see that the car is behind door number one, you should stick with your original choice. There is no need to switch doors as the probability of winning the car by staying with door number one is 100%. The Monty Hall problem typically assumes that the doors are not transparent and that the contents behind them are unknown to the contestant.