I have moved this over to the Tech Interview Cheat Sheet Repo and has been expanded and even has code challenges you can run and practice against!
\
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
Locate the section for your github remote in the .git/config
file. It looks like this:
[remote "origin"]
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
url = git@github.com:joyent/node.git
Now add the line fetch = +refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/*
to this section. Obviously, change the github url to match your project's URL. It ends up looking like this:
" Don't try to be vi compatible | |
set nocompatible | |
" Helps force plugins to load correctly when it is turned back on below | |
filetype off | |
" TODO: Load plugins here (pathogen or vundle) | |
" Turn on syntax highlighting | |
syntax on |
if(!require("ggseas")) install.packages("ggseas") | |
if(!require("forecast")) install.packages("forecast") | |
if(!require("data.table")) install.packages("data.table") | |
if(!require("knitr")) install.packages("knitr") | |
library(ggseas) | |
library(forecast) | |
library(data.table) | |
# Get data |
The current version of this document is here.
This document contains additional supporting material for the claims in this post (published 1 September 2019), in response to a cease and desist letter from John De Goes that I received on 6 July 2020.
Please see also this post for more information about De Goes deleting the FCoP repository on GitHub shortly before sending the cease and desist letter.