This gist shows how to create a GIF screencast using only free OS X tools: QuickTime, ffmpeg, and gifsicle.
To capture the video (filesize: 19MB), using the free "QuickTime Player" application:
/** | |
* CSS theme for the Clearly browser extension by Evernote. | |
* See: www.evernote.com/clearly/ | |
* | |
* Additional options used alongside this CSS: | |
* Body font: Droid sans | |
* Header font: PT Serif | |
* Monospace font: Inconsolata | |
* Background: #EDEDED | |
* Foregound: #444444 |
#!/bin/bash | |
#attach the EBS to /dev/sdf before running it | |
# If not mounted... format EBS | |
mkfs -t ext4 /dev/xvdb | |
mkdir /mnt/new | |
mount /dev/xvdb /mnt | |
#copy original /var to /dev/xvdb | |
sudo cp -ax /var/* /mnt |
with | |
dau as ( | |
-- This part of the query can be pretty much anything. | |
-- The only requirement is that it have three columns: | |
-- dt, user_id, inc_amt | |
-- Where dt is a date and user_id is some unique identifier for a user. | |
-- Each dt-user_id pair should be unique in this table. | |
-- inc_amt represents the amount of value that this user created on dt. | |
-- The most common case is | |
-- inc_amt = incremental revenue from the user on dt |
codecov: | |
token: uuid # Your private repository token | |
url: "http" # for Codecov Enterprise customers | |
slug: "owner/repo" # for Codecov Enterprise customers | |
branch: master # override the default branch | |
bot: username # set user whom will be the consumer of oauth requests | |
ci: # Custom CI domains if Codecov does not identify them automatically | |
- ci.domain.com | |
- !provider # ignore these providers when checking if CI passed | |
# ex. You may test on Travis, Circle, and AppVeyor, but only need |
I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn't let me show it to anyone, even though recruiting loved it.
I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon's recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they've made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don't real