Picking stocks based on "everyone uses..." is a great example of a bubble. What about all the companies that are not consumer facing?

A bubble is "everyone buying because everyone knows someone will buy even higher." "Everyone uses..." is a great example of a revenue generator. I assume you are meaning that you buying based on popularity of places you frequent is an example of an echo chamber?

Regarding non-consumer facing companies, I don't see what the problem is. If you have no information about the company, then it's gambling to buy it. So you miss out on some companies, no big deal. Most people only have enough money to make a few bets, so you should bet on what you know about. It's not like a test where you lose points if you don't answer a question; you don't lose money if you don't buy a stock you don't know about.

To be honest, I agree with the parent that the question is wrong. No company wants employees that are bad at interviewing. No company wants employees that are bad at anything, in fact.

Maybe it helps to contact the company that rejected you and ask them why they rejected you. This would allow you to narrow down your weaknesses and improve these skills. I've never tried this myself, so I'm not sure how common such a request is, but it seems like a sensible thing to do.

I don't think you will get very straight answers from most.

Doesn't cost anything to try though. We actually do attempt to give straightforward answers to candidates that are not a good fit, although we are a smaller company that doesn't have the concerns that a large corporation has

Or any answers. At least for the US, I've read before here on HN that it may be due to the company's fear of being litigated against for some sort of discrimination.

Or even a response for that matter.

Or, if you do get a response, it's usually a "can't sue me" copout like "not enough experience" or "wrong cultural fit".

Whether parsing XML is easy or hard, how often do you actually write an XML parser? If I'm digesting a JSON/XML document, I resort to a parser library for the language that I'm using at that point, so the complexity of writing such a parser is pretty much non-existent. Definitely not a compelling reason to switch to JSON.

Most XML parsers I've used are leaky abstractions. Even once the document is parsed, actually accessing the data can require a lot more complexity than accessing parsed JSON data.

IIRC, the popular C++ implementations were glorified tokenizers. It was up to you to figure out which tokens were data and how those tokens related to each other.

Ah, SAX. People built some true horrors with that API, just because it was "more performant" than DOM. Never mind that their hacked-together tree builders often leaked like sieves.

I have no clue about the security implications. What can go wrong if I use ngrok for my development environment that receives development webooks? Please enlighten me.

Abstracted further and further, up to the point where someone without programming experience can tell a computer to do the thing it should do, making "coding" (or at least how we know it now) redundant. Have you thought about it this way?

Actually abstracted further and further until AI takes over and they meet. That is the moment coding will be over.

To answer the "how do I work around this during development": non-HTTPS is permitted on localhost (this is at least the case in Chrome). The spec also hints at this (https://w3c.github.io/push-api/#security-and-privacy-conside...). But, as has already been mentioned, this is about desktop notifications and not web push.