> I think that, if you gave me the ability to search the pre-contest Internet and a week to prepare my submissions, I would be kind of embarrassed if I didn't get gold, and I'd find the contest to be rather less interesting than I would find the real thing.
I don't know what your personal experience with competitive programming is, so your statement may be true for yourself, but I can confidently state that this is not true for the VAST majority of programmers and software engineers.
Much like trying to do IMO problems without tons of training/practice, the mid-to-hard problems in the ICPC are completely unapproachable to the average computer science student (who already has a better chance than the average software engineer) in the course of a week.
In the same way that LLMs have memorized tons of stuff, the top competitors capable of achieving a gold medal at the ICPC know algorithms, data structures, and how to pattern match them to problems to an extreme degree.
> I can confidently state that this is not true for the VAST majority of programmers and software engineers.
That may well be true. I think it's even more true in cases where the user is not a programmer by profession. I once watched someone present their graduate-level research in a different field and explain how they had solved a real-world problem in their field by writing a complicated computer program full of complicated heuristics to get it to run fast enough and thinking "hmm, I'm pretty sure that a standard algorithm from computer graphics could be adapted to directly solve your problem in O(n log n) time".
If users can get usable algorithms that approximately match the state of the art out of a chatbot (or a fancy "agent") without needing to know the magic words, then that would be amazing, regardless of whether those chatbots/agents ever become creative enough to actually advance the state of the art.
(I sometimes dream of an AI producing a piece of actual code that comes even close to state of the art for solving mixed-integer optimization problems. That's a whole field of wonderful computer science / math that is mostly usable via a couple of extraordinarily expensive closed-source offerings.)
OR-Tools is a whole grab-bag of tools, most of which are wrappers around various solvers, including Gurobi and CPLEX. It seems like CP-SAT is under the OR-Tools umbrella, and CP-SAT may well be state-of-the-art for the specific sets of problems that it's well-suited for.
Yeah, absolutely, I spent months preparing for the ICPC with my team and ended up scoring a paltry 3/12. A week would likely not have helped us at all - we simply had no idea how to approach the rest! Top teams are on another level.
Compute and such is a fair point but that AI is here at all is mind-blowing to me.
If you need world knowledge, then bigger models. If you need problem-solving, then more reasoning.
But the specific nuance of picking nano/mini/main and minimal/low/medium/high comes down to experimentation and what your cost/latency constraints are.
I love it! I'm the one who recreated Kung Fu Chess at kfchess.com. Very impressed at you bringing it to life -- definitely at least 100x harder to do :)
Dan Boneh is amazing. I took his Cryptography course at Stanford and loved it so much that I ended up having him advise me on my senior thesis. Would highly recommend stuff that he puts out.
Although I empathize with the struggle of the journey, having gone through a similar path of math team -> Stanford (where I briefly ran into the author), I think this is a particularly uncharitable characterization of math competitions.
Yes, there are many students (even more these days) that are in the grind for the accolades and college admissions, but math competitions were genuinely my favorite part of high school. They helped hone my problem solving, grit (!), work ethic, social skills, and leadership skills in a way that I continue to see pay off 15 years later. I am forever grateful for my high school teacher who supported me during this time.
It helped that I was actually passionate about it, which I think is the underlying point here. Weird constructs like math competitions that help kids channel their passions? Incredible. Forced hoop-jumping for the purpose of college admissions? Horrible.
I also enjoyed math (and related) competitions and continued them in college and beyond. Though I don't think math or algorithm puzzles are good "technical" interview questions, I was still sad to see Google Code Jam come to an end.
We switched from LZ4 to Zstd in almost all of our compression use cases to great effect. Reducing the data on disk or over the network is a huge win with only a minor loss in decompression speed (using the appropriate level of Zstd). E.g. data in Kafka: https://amplitude.engineering/reducing-kafka-costs-with-z-ta...
We're building the analytics infrastructure for digital products and looking for people passionate about distributed systems, machine learning, dev tooling, and/or data visualization. Anyone who has a website, mobile app, or even IoT device is a potential customer.
We're 500 people now (85 engineers) and growing incredibly quickly as a business. We're 22nd on YC's top companies list (https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/) and still climbing. We know that people are the most important part of the business and think a lot about how to create and scale a culture of humility, ownership, and growth mindset.
Whether you're interested in building scalable infrastructure, prototyping new products and UX, making analytics instrumentation easier for engineers, or doing machine learning research, you can do that at Amplitude.
I'm one of the founders, so feel free to reach out to learn more (jeffrey at amplitude). Otherwise check out our openings and apply here: https://boards.greenhouse.io/amplitude
We help companies build better products by providing analytics for understanding user behavior. We believe that the future of product development is in smart, easy-to-use analytics that helps you make good decisions and invest in the right areas. We're a 400-person company (60 engineers), and we raised our Series E last year. We've gotten incredible traction helping customers like Square, Atlassian, Dropbox, Twitter, Twitch, and Capital One change the way they build products. We were recognized in Wealthfront's Career-Launching Companies (https://blog.wealthfront.com/career-launching-companies-list...), Forbes' Cloud 100 (https://www.forbes.com/cloud100/list/), and YC's top companies (https://www.ycombinator.com/topcompanies/).
We have many open positions that can be found here (we're growing fast!): https://boards.greenhouse.io/amplitude. In particular, we're looking to expand the engineering team with the following positions:
* Engineer Manager, Infrastructure Analytics
* Software Engineer, All Levels (React, Full Stack, Infra, Query, Data Pipeline, Integrations)
* Senior Devops Engineer
Our tech stack consists of Java, Python, Redis, Kafka, PostgreSQL, Docker, SaltStack, Terraform, Kubernetes on the backend and TypeScript, React, Redux, Highcharts, d3, Node on the frontend. We've got a ton of challenging technical problems to solve thanks to being in the analytics space (we've processed tens of trillions of data points!), and we're looking for people who are passionate about the intersection of technology and product to help us take the next step. You can find more examples of the work we do on our blog: https://amplitude.engineering/
We've used Gather for a few company events and it's been super helpful for recreating as much of an in-person interaction style as possible. It outshines Zoom when you have more than 10 people in the same meeting and in more casual settings. Especially for office cultures that were heavily in-person like ours, it helps bolster the sense of team and collaboration that isn't the same over Slack/Zoom.
I don't know what your personal experience with competitive programming is, so your statement may be true for yourself, but I can confidently state that this is not true for the VAST majority of programmers and software engineers.
Much like trying to do IMO problems without tons of training/practice, the mid-to-hard problems in the ICPC are completely unapproachable to the average computer science student (who already has a better chance than the average software engineer) in the course of a week.
In the same way that LLMs have memorized tons of stuff, the top competitors capable of achieving a gold medal at the ICPC know algorithms, data structures, and how to pattern match them to problems to an extreme degree.