You should really insist on a review. If you don't get feedback on how you're doing in your career, it's at your expense. My company has no formal process, I still force a review every year.
Also, I believe you should ask for a raise every year. Even if you've completely stagnated professionally, your salary is decreasing continuously with inflation.
Companies seem to take advantage of introverted people who are too afraid to speak up about perfectly reasonable requests, like clarifying your performance and goals. It definitely sounds like you're in that boat.
I've reached out via email 2-3 times and twice in person. At a _very_ informal meeting (about a project) I had mentioned it as well on 6/29, but nothing has been said to me since.
I'm not terribly sure how to go about forcing the issue when managers are unable to fit time into their schedule for me.
I wouldn't consider myself completely introverted, but I don't want to seem needy (ie: cutting into other people's busy days/schedules)
Hopefully I hear something back soon, but I'm not holding my breath.
It's also the most subjective; people drastically vary in what they value in their city. It seems like more money is the most universally uniform factor which is why it's treated as the main value focus of all these surveys.
I've read the comment you're replying to a few times, and I'm curious why it matters if they are or not. For the purpose of contributing to this discussion, have they stated anything false or misrepresented anything? If so, you should present that as a retort instead, instead of questioning their identity.
Furthermore, for authors of comments critical of Uber, do you also go out of your way to ask if they work for a competing company like Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft?
Let's ask you that same question. Are you a Waymo, Google, Tesla or Lyft employee or shareholder?
I've seen at least one comment on a previous thread explain that the reason for their anonymity is due of the number of completely unmerited downvotes regardless of how well thought out and considered the comment. People like you who have a clear conflict of interest because you've got an economic interest in the success of a competitor are no different than that of an Uber employee. I wouldn't be surprised that the main reason negative Uber get upvoted as much as they do is because those with a conflict of interest that want to see them fail greatly outnumbers those with a conflict of interest that want to see them succeed. They are the 500lb gorilla in the room and have a lot of competitors with supporters on HN. I'd love to know how many others are there on HN doing exactly what you're doing?
I honestly don't think it matters if they are brand new accounts or not so long as they contribute constructively to the discussion and follow HN's guidelines. There's a reason why dang and the other mods allow anonymity on HN. It's because while some anonymous commenters are shitposters, there are a lot of people that have something to valuable to contribute and don't feel comfortable posting under their primary account. So long as they add value. That is not only accepted on HN. It's encouraged if it is the only way that person will feel comfortable posting on HN. So back to my original question. Was the narrative pushed by this "strawman" factually incorrect? If it was not, then challenge them on their content, not on their identity.
Fortunately, your contribution thus far to this discussion has been to very clearly demonstrate that while their may be HNers pushing a narrative supportive of Uber, there are also people like you pushing a narrative attacking Uber because it economically behooves you to do so. It's good that people see this so clearly because they can learn to discount the biases of people on both sides with a conflict of interest.
Yes, I'm supportive of Uber. I'm also supportive of other companies that have gotten undue negative press like Apple, Facebook, Monsanto and ever other company that has become the whipping boy du jour of the virtue signaling press that has all of their own skeletons in their closet but act like their being virtuous when they smear a company for ad impressions.
Heck, the media has tried giving Tesla gets the exact same media treatment that you're complaining about with Uber, yet you're still an investor, right? Why haven't you sold your stock in outrage? A simple google search for "tesla abuse safety" turns up dozens and dozens of articles [0].
Tesla fortunately gets the benefit of still being a rich person's toy and therefore Tesla outrage porn isn't nearly as viral and profitable for the media companies as Uber stories. Furthermore, Elon also has the benefit of being more likable. The media tried to push character attacking stories a few years back about his divorce and whatnot, and I'm guessing they stopped because it didn't generate enough outrage and profits. If he had not been likable, he would have gotten the same treatment Kalanick did.
Even during the week that the Susan Fowler post went viral, a sexual harassment case was filed in an actual court against Tesla, but it didn't get the pageviews and went nowhere [1].
I don't bring that up as a strike against Tesla. I bring it up to demonstrate that sexual harassment and worker abuse issues are a problem everywhere, in our industry and in the world in general. It happens at Uber. It happens at Tesla. It happens at Apple. It happens at Google. It happens everywhere. Whether it is Uber, Tesla, Apple, Google or any other company, it does absolutely no good to single out a one company, crucifying it and all the hardworking employees at that company on account of a few bad apples that don't just exist at that one company. We can and should address these important social issues without succumbing to the outrage porn that has reached epidemic proportions in 2017.
Unless I missed it, I have seen no evidence to suggest that these problems are statistically more or less common at one company versus another. That perception is entirely the result of whichever company the media talks about more and they are going to talk the most about the company whose name gets them the most pageviews. Today it is Uber. If Tesla eventually becomes the household name it aspires to be, then it will increasingly happen to Tesla as well. Like Uber, I hope Tesla succeeds as well, but I also hope we solve the problem of the profitability of outrage porn before Tesla succeeds because Tesla employees, the majority of which are also hardworking and honest, don't deserve to be crucified for the sake of ad impressions either.
Languages like Scratch really shine in the 9-12 year old range where the goal is to get them playing with the core concepts of languages and inspire them to pursue computer science further on their own time. The end goal isn't to make them ready to work in the industry, and it definitely isn't to teach them typing and syntax skills, as those things become what "programming" is to them. Some people really only think of computer science as black magic, but Scratch helps them see the problem solving and joy of creation; the other parts can come once they have the drive to continue.
I don't think Scratch has much of a place in a high school classroom as a "beginner" language, and it won't help an already impassioned programmer who has his or her heart set out to pursue it, like the author. Production languages work better for that.
I started learning C as a kid and I was hooked, Scratch wasn't for me (and also wasn't around at the time). But now I teach kids in a volunteer program and they have trouble paying attention for long periods of time, they have trouble typing, and most of them haven't chosen programming as their career. They will either see the light or move onto other things. Fast-tracking them to the important concepts hopefully better informs that decision.
Google customer service does job, resolves rare scenario that computer did not handle.
In other news, utopian future not yet achieved.