the point is that the "mistakes" are just people bitching for no reason, which again, hurts problemsetters for no reason

Monte what

As a tester who forgot to write his tester comment, I hope everyone has fun solving the problems!

then you've never seen an actual shit contest

this is the most scuffed scoreboard i've ever seen lmao wtf happened

*whether

pls pls pls more mhc!!!

If I remember correctly, it is a well-known result that any sorting network that sorts all binary arrays is also valid for all normal arrays.

However, I'm not really sure if the usual definition of a "sorting network" applies here, and I couldn't find a source for this claim either, so I'd be happy if there is anyone that could shed more light onto this.

If anybody is curious, I tried dividing all medal counts by the number of participations for that particular country and sorting lexicographically by (G, S, B). Probably, an even better method would be to include only the last ~20 (or even less) years, but I think I've had enough of bs4 for today...

I don't know about the correlations, but I must express that the ranking method you have chosen is somewhat perplexing. I would definitely put a 69-41-17 split over 22-53-55, it makes little sense to order countries by total number of medals.

You erase everything afterwards anyways, so it amortizes

To the guy I was talking to about neurosurgeons, I didn't mean to hang up 😭

Hmu if you see this 🙏

This is true, I forgot about the factoring part. Other than that, I had approximated the amount of distinct prime factors as $$$\mathcal{O}(\log \log k)$$$, but it turned out to be $$$\mathcal{O}(\frac{\log k}{\log \log k})$$$. I will now edit my initial reply accordingly.

The contest hasn't started yet, probably related to that

around $$$\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{k} + \log n \frac{\log k}{\log \log k})$$$ per testcase. Simple trial factorization uses $$$\mathcal{O}(\sqrt k)$$$ time to factorize $$$k$$$, and $$$\mathcal{O}(\log n \frac{\log k}{\log \log k})$$$ is to do matrix exponentiation $$$\omega(k)$$$ times (see the prime omega function) where each exponentiation sequence takes $$$\mathcal{O}(\log n)$$$ time.

I do find it funny that the local currency is called Bob

nice, thanks!

can you at least guarantee that it will not collide with the ioi in any way? (including shortly before or after the ioi, as traveling to and from bolivia can take quite a while)

so... when exactly is the qualifier? I can't see any mention of an exact date except the registration deadline

The GA minutes for IOI'n have to be approved by the GA of IOI'n+1 to be published. The "approval" process is more or less just a formality (I've never seen it actually fail), but they kind of have to wait until next year as they can't vote on something that is not finalized yet during IOI'n.

Turkey is also an unofficial participant this year.

Judging by the timestamps on your rating graph... do you still have 2 IOI attempts left? :O

ffs, enough with the doomer posts already.

Initially, this was my entire comment. But, by some reason unbeknownst to me, I wanted to write more.

"Codeforces is pointless to <1800"? "Rating is a good proxy for tracking how good you have become"? What? To me, something almost as mysterious as the reasons people cheat is how the entirety of codeforces seems to be convinced that rating is more than a little gimmick that Mike decided to add one day for fun/topcoder reasons. What does it mean to "become better"? We are all here, using our valuable time on this earth to solve funny algorithm problems with no use nor functionality, and as if that wasn't absurd enough, everyone just decided that we would care about weird internet points that somehow quantify our ability to solve these problems. Then, without missing a beat, everyone started worrying about what these numbers mean, how high their own numbers are, how much they fluctuate, how high other people's numbers are, and a myriad of other absurdities.

It. All. Means. Absolutely. Nothing.

At this point, I start to ask myself if codeforces would be better off simply abolishing the rating system. I do not understand how a standings table affects people's enjoyment of problems. I do not understand how a number makes people sad, happy, or disappointed. If you are here for any reason at all other than to have fun, let me break something to you: You are wasting what little time you have. "Sure, but cheaters take the fun away." How? I am honestly at my wit's end, trying to comprehend how your minds work. Maybe you should reconsider if you are here to solve problems or just to beat other people and see your name above others in a table. In which case, I can assure you, there are much better places than codeforces for such purposes, and you will not be missed here in the slightest.

If you are here for interviews, go to leetcode. There's a reason why it exists. It isn't the reason why codeforces exists.

Honestly, the cult around rating points and rating goals and rating colors and rankings and how many problems lead to how much rating and how to practice to gain rating and how to learn to practice to gain rating has become so widespread and popular that people seldom even question it anymore. People attach sentimental values to titles, they set goals for themselves to "reach x rating before y", they grind and work hard to achieve said goals, and nobody even stops to question it. Sure, it's fine if such things are viewed as a fun challenge, done to maybe spice things up a bit. But the current state of our community tells me otherwise.

Well, that's enough rambling for today. I hope I haven't alienated the entire userbase with a single comment (well, I doubt anyone will actually read this anyways), but I couldn't keep it in me anymore. Have fun.

YES! Like, I understand that people want to expose cheaters, but I personally can't do much about it and I don't want to see $$$\infty$$$ blog posts about it either.

as a heads up, most people don't like you either

predicting [800, 3000] for I is diabolical

based