I have seen many of my smart friends not getting a job where many dumb girls are getting it easily. What's the matter. Can someone explain?
→ Pay attention
Before contest
Rayan Programming Contest 2024 - Selection (Codeforces Round, Div. 1 + Div. 2)
4 days
Register now »
Rayan Programming Contest 2024 - Selection (Codeforces Round, Div. 1 + Div. 2)
4 days
Register now »
*has extra registration
→ Top rated
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 3993 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3743 |
| 3 | orzdevinwang | 3707 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3627 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | Benq | 3564 |
| 7 | Kevin114514 | 3443 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3434 |
| 9 | Rewinding | 3397 |
| 10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
→ Top contributors
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 167 |
| 2 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 3 | maomao90 | 162 |
| 3 | atcoder_official | 162 |
| 5 | adamant | 159 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 155 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
| 10 | nor | 152 |
→ Find user
→ Recent actions
Codeforces (c) Copyright 2010-2024 Mike Mirzayanov
The only programming contests Web 2.0 platform
Server time: Nov/26/2024 10:50:26 (k3).
Desktop version, switch to mobile version.
Supported by
Because boys are the ones recruiting them.
These perverts are ruining future of many people.
That's the condition right now . I hope it changes soon. Because seeing a dumb girl got accepted in Google while my friend who is 1800+ in cf got rejected makes no sense to me.
What does CF have to do with getting a job (outside India or some countries, I mean)? Most things learnt from CP won't be used in actual work anyways.
being good at CF means that you generally have good problem solving skills and are quite smart.
It can therefore be correlated by your problem-solving skills in other areas that would include your job.
Well, yes, there are a range of jobs that require that problem solving skills, like the Quant industry. Not the majority of the IT industry, though.
Yup , But to get in so called FAANG in India
Only true if FAANG companies visit ur clg
Yup. There a indeed a lot of ways.
I'd be damned
The most important thing I learned from CP is that there is no better language than C/C++.
This is probably because your noob friend cannot even solve a 2000+ rated heavy light decomposition problem in 45 minutes while that girl effortlessly reversed the linked list in no time.
After all Reversing a Linked List >> Heavy Light Decomposition.
Sad reality :(
That is sexism, nothing more, nothing less.
EFSANEYAZİLİMCİ
They can't find girlfriend that's why...
If this reason is true then that sounds scary af
Because your smart friends are dumb not that girls.
You Still don't know the reality . Do you ?
Show me the reality than with proof.
There is no need . You can live in your own world. That is
Child Like you Blabber anything,talk about reality and have no proof.
Ok.
Lol my friends are dumb? Says a person who took 100+ contests to reach pupil. Go see a mirror lol.
My brother straight away chose violence(✖╭╮✖)
As a genderless alien, I think this blog will have 100+ comments in the next 24-36 hours
Actually I said nothing
I take my words back
This topic has been discussed extensively, e.g. here: https://codeforces.me/blog/entry/104841
When people have a hard time finding good employment, this can have personal reasons, but often it will have structural reasons (bad policy, discrimination, historical injustice, etc.). We must all work towards fixing these issues in order to provide good opportunities and a fair outcome for everybody. However, simply blaming some underrepresented group ("foreigners/women/religious group x are taking all the jobs") is counterproductive and harmful. It's the oldest trick in the book in order to draw your attention away from the real issues. Please don't fall for it. Women, on average, have significantly less power in virtually all situations (political, economic, legal, social, religious, etc.). So please rest assured that, statistically speaking, women are not getting any unfair advantages. If you actually want to improve things, you should focus on those who actually wield power and hold them to account.
PS: I understand that it can sometimes look scary when an underrepresented group might (hopefully) become less underrepresented. Perhaps you once felt like your position in society was far above that of women, and now it may seem like women are becoming more equal. From a male perspective with very traditional views, this may feel like you are losing some of your status in comparison. Just like people in industrial countries can (when populists spew their hatred there) sometimes feel threatened by the rise of formerly less-developed nations. It's the same, powerful psychological instinct. But rationally, this makes little sense – a fairer society will very likely benefit you yourself (it will benefit all except for those who unfairly hold a lot of power today and are afraid to lose it). So please try to be strong here, let's use logic instead of simple instincts, let's fight for a better future and not to prevent it.
What are the real issues?
Unequal & unfair distribution of wealth and opportunities. Global inequality. Corruption in politics and economy. Populism. Perhaps racism. Those are just a few issues that seem to be central (in my opinion).
Let's please go after the rich and powerful, who are trying to stick to privileges they never deserved, instead of going after those who can hardly defend themselves.
(1) Yes, there is a wealth gap between men and women. I have no doubt. But this is not treated because women are not treated fairly. It is because women have to bear children, take time off work, etc & have different biological construction.
(2) What do you have against the rich that (rightfully) earned their money? Yeah, maybe they have some nice stuff, nice cars, control the media, etc. But you can't just "go after them" as if they are some demons. They are humans too.
(3) Yes, you are right that there may be fewer women in politics. But so what? I can still have my views (as a woman) represented by men. As a white women, I can have my views represented by a black man. Like...it doesn't really matter the gender makeup of political ppl, moreso their views.
And if you're trying to argue that women are underrepresented in politics because of injustice, I don't think so. Woman probably aren't interested in being politicians because they are too busy being mothers, etc.
(4) Equality sounds fucking awesome, I agree. But let's be real--God(*) didn't make human species with equality in mind.
(*) If you don't believe in God, just replace the sentence with "human species didn't evolve with equality in mind."
Some humans have health issues. Some humans have impaired mental capacity. And some babies are just born smarter than others. Some people are more emotional. People from some races are different (not biologically necessarily, but geographical differences can affect the person [e.g. hot versus cold environment]).
Equality can never exist. Even if men and women were given 100% same opportunities and upbringing, guess what--99% of bricklayers will still be men.
Okay, long rant.
Hope you have a good day! (Sorry if I was too abrasive, mostly just want to respond.)
I don't think this mindset is healthy (in fact, it is one i had in the past). You can disagree that diversity hiring is the best way to fix innequality, but saying everything is okay is bogus to me.
Point (1) could be an explantion for the wage gap but saying it is the only reason for it seems farfetched, specially considering how our society is still sexist (just see all the andrew tate supporters out there).
Point (2) is true in a vacuum, but Gregory's point is that there are more pressing issues than taking off privileges from marginalized people.
About point (3), i think it is very naive to think that it's a politician's best interest to help people outside their group. From the point of view of someone in power, they would like everyone who isn't them to be as marginalized as possible. In fact, it were black people who fought for their rights, it were woman who fought for their rights, etc.
Anyway, wouldn't it be better if more woman could voice their ideas directly? Wouldn't we find better solutions for problems that woman face if they can fight for it in person?
What about other similarly marginalized groups like black people? Are they "busy" with to make them "not interested" in politics? I don't think this is a reasonable explanation at all.
About (4), true, people are not equal. It doesn't mean we shouldn't want to fight for opportunities that are more equal for everyone. There will always be more woman being housewives and there will always be more man doing physical work, but i think its reasonable to want areas where their biological differences shouldn't matter to have participation similar participation from both.
Again, diversity hiring might not be the way to do it, but I still think we should fight innequality.
I think the real problem is an aggressive and destructive mindset embodied by the phrase "go after the rich and powerful" without regard to any sense of fairness or justice, and with no distinction between those who earned it rightfully and those who cheated. The entire point of this mindset is to go after people, and inevitably the only way to make things right is to use group violence instead of honest and peaceful methods. Inevitably it comes down to banning this, or forbidding that, or increasing taxes to do that. And if you don't like it, that's what the police, firearms, and armored cars are for.
Why don't we just stop going after people in the first place?
URM and women having a large advantage is just true. Why is it that every time this is brought up, people try to divert it into another topic?
Companies always try to hire top talents, because they have more ambition, more room to grow and will perform better in the long run. Let's assume a company has two applicants who scored similarly in an assessment test. The first one is among the top 50% of students in a wealthy country, and the second one is in the top 1% of students in a poor country. Then the company will very likely go with the second person, because it's very easy to see that the second one has shown more ambition and talent to reach their current stage and will thus grow and perform better in the future.
When companies give preference to minorities or women, it follows the same logic: hiring the top people relative to their groups. When a woman is skilled in computer science, given the overall statistics that most women are not successful in computer science, it is fair to assume that this particular woman has exceptional motivation and talent.
(And of course there are other motives, for example if a company's product targets women, who make up half of the population, then it will be helpful to have a better understanding in their workforce of their customers)
Your comments have given me a new perspective on this topic, but I still have a question: you argue for hiring based on the motivation of the candidate (not only in this specific comment, but also in other ones in the past), but how does this practice take into account the inherent (i.e., natural) talent of some people? Let's say you have to choose between two people: 1. The first one is very hard-working, spent thousands of hours on practicing CP problems and got to expert on Codeforces. 2. The second one spent less than a thousand hours on practice and got to master on CF.
Who would you choose? Sure, the first one is much more motivated to do work, but the unfortunate truth is that the second one is likely to do more difficult work than the first person, especially considering the fact that the latter person has likely still a lot of untapped potential, and, if given enough incentives, can improve still a lot.
This comparison is not perfect: in the context of this discussion, females do not only need to do intellectual effort (becoming better in CS), but also social effort: fighting stereotypes and standing tall in society and the CS community. I also do not intend this to be a gendered argument (the latter person in my example may as well be female, non-binary, etc). I am just wondering whether hiring based on the motivation of the candidate is a fail-proof system, and if not, how we can improve it.
I think that in a lot of cs related jobs the skill required doesn't translate to cf rating, or is much more acquired. So the company wants to find the most suitable candidates for the job, and it will pick the people who will most likely succeed in it, which relates much more to hard work / devotion / motivation.
Aha, makes sense then! But are there CS jobs where an inherent talent is required (similarly to achieving high CF ratings) and where this talent can be deduced during the hiring process?
Of course natural talent plays a big part, it's not only motivation or only talent, without either the other won't help. cf rating is kind of a specific thing that doesn't say a lot, but I guess that a high rating does point somewhat to good problem solving abilities.
Thank you for your very constructive comment here :)
I totally agree with you that recruiters will often prefer "natural talent" over "hard-earned skills". But I believe this is exactly why companies want to hire people from the top of their respective groups.
Talent is somewhat abstract, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say we want maximum intelligence (similar to IQ). We know that intelligence is somewhat evenly distributed in society (I won't insist that it is exactly evenly distributed everywhere, there's a lot we don't know, but we can be certain that one social group is not twice as intelligent as some other). Consequently, when hiring only outstanding talents, a company will statistically employ people from all groups quite evenly, because each group in society will have their own share of outstanding talent.
Meanwhile, you can increase your skills through hard work (e.g. by learning a new programming language or solving tasks on codeforces). Skills are also very valuable for companies, because they can rely on them right away.
I'm not an expert on assessment centers, but I assume the goal is to determine candidates levels of both talent and skill separately, perhaps with a focus on talent. This is why they won't only give you the problems you have trained for, but instead also challenge you with new and often unconventional tasks, to measure talent instead of skill.
Many here, I'm afraid, might be subject to exactly that misunderstanding: even if a woman is not very experienced with a certain type of tasks ("no high score on codeforces"), she might still earn many points in an assessment center (e.g. on an IQ test). So it might look like she got preferential treatment due to this hidden variable, even if that's objectively not the case.
If you check you can see that there are efforts to make women in areas where there are mostly men but not the other way around yet they say it's to make men and women equal. There is a huge distribution of pay in modelling, where men are paid less than women. Also there is no effort to increase more men in nursing, why is that? How will be achieve "equality" if we don't increase men in women dominated areas. Also sewer cleaning, brick laying, construction etc. are dominated by men, yet there is no programs like "women in sewer" to increase women there, why is that?
Hoping to see conservatism spread in Germany!
It's important to look at the big picture. It's very easy to find, e.g. here:
In India, men had 3.57 times the income of women in 2017.
Please rest assured that, as soon as countless millions are suffering from unequal pay due to structural discrimination in the modelling business, I will be fighting right along your side to fix the issue!
Thank you for one of the only comments here that make an effort towards understanding and having a productive discussion about the topic.
I don't usually seek knowledge in works of fiction, but I remember hearing somewhere that fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, which is easily verifiable in the real world, even with a limited knowledge of it. It's disheartening to see so many public figures, like politicians, media hosts etc. using fear to recruit people for their cause. It's a terrible, and terribly effective, demagoguery that never results in any progress being made.
I guess codeforces is just not the right platform to talk about this stuff (and these blogs are getting a bit repetitive), which why I left this comment as neutral as possible, and I also hope my very relevant Yoda reference didn't dismiss the point I was trying to make. Let's focus on cp, keep this community as inviting and inclusive as we can, lift each other up, use reason and logic, and refrain from starting discussions that might offend or discourage others.
On one hand Amazon laid Off so many employees in India rn and on the other hand the amazon wow hiring is going on for 24/25 batch.
TL;DR: woke mind virus
In the USA, A lot of people think they are morally superior because they are woke. They think that they are helping the historically marginalized (re: black people, hispanics, lgbtq, women, and nobody else) and all that crap. So they try to hire more blacks, hispanics, lbtq, women, etc because they think they are so good morally (look at me--helping out historically marginalized!!!).
I mean...there are a bunch of problems with that narrative...
(1) You can be straight white male and still have been historically marginalized. You can be a black lgbtq women and still NOT have been historically marginalized.
(2) What the fuck. Lots of people have ancestors who went through extremely hard times, but it's our ancestors, not us who should receive any sort of "help"/reparations. Women living today in USA always had the right to vote. Blacks living in USA today were never directly enslaved (although sadly, a few of them had to live through Jim Crow era, which is a valid point).
I have met many people that think they are some sort of God for hiring women (because they're representing the "unrepresented") or whatever.
It all stems from a fucked up sense of moral superiority.
To quote from the moral Godess herself, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, "I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right." This is how woke Gods see the world. They see all non-wokes as morally horrible human beings that favor real statistics over passionate lies.
P.S. I went very extreme in my reply, mostly for satire, oops :\
I find it absolutely fascinating how you are arguing that there is no discrimination in support of this blog that claims there is discrimination. Which one is it?
Assuming the author of this blog is an adult, I'm pretty sure he has the right to vote. He very likely is not directly enslaved given that he can even go online and post such stuff. So according to your logic, he is certainly not subject of discrimination. What is this blog / your comment about then?
(1) Perhaps since you are in Germany, the situation is different. But in the U.S., many people claim they have been discriminated against historically (hence, historical marginalization) because their ancestors were enslaved, couldn't vote, etc.
I don't really like that argument because as you said, anyone can still very well be discriminated against even if they have right to vote, are not enslaved, etc. I was just satirically making fun of the typical "poor me!" victimization I've heard before.
(2) I'm confused, which blog are you referencing in which "blog that claims there is discrimination." Not sure.
(3) Anyone can face discrimination. Cis white men; black lgtq woman; etc. So why are we assuming that cis white men face less discrimination then, say, black lgtq woman? I don't really get that part, I guess. Why are we hiring more woman, on the assumption that woman face discrimination, when in reality men could face more discrimination?
You're asking:
To clarify, this blog (the very page you are on right now!) is titled:
I think it's fair to say the author is clearly claiming to be a victim of discrimination based on his social group ("boys"). You have stated very explicitly how you have an issue with precisely this type of "victimization". But at the same time, you seem to support the author. This is very contradictory.
Is your view that the author of this blog has actually nothing to complain about? Or is your view that the author is right to complain about discrimination against his social group (meanings that you are affected by, I am quoting you, "woke mind virus")?
To make the environment more productive and soothing. You can watch The Wolf of Wall Street to get more detailed answer.
Girsl must wash dishes on the kitchen and make food
And boys should hunt food in the forest... In which era have you reached bruh?
Candidate Master saying this. Must be personal . Well he not totally wrong i say.
It's just very embarrassing when men don't know how to cook and even boast about it.
What's next? You don't know how to read and write, because books are women stuff? How much do you want to depend on other people in your daily life?
Get yourself some recipes, man, chances are you'll enjoy it!
I know how to cook every Indian Meal Mam, it's sound's i am lying but i am not lying Mam. First i saw my mom cooking and slowly slowly after following her , i can now cook some good recipes too All Thanks to her.
I am not against anybody here . These days it's ppl easily get offended.
Awesome, I'm proud of you! I'm glad we can agree that cooking is actually a pretty cool skill, really valuable in life :)
Because girls bleed , do you :)
💀 💀