I'm a data engineer for most of my day right now, and a lot of it is done with ruby/python/shell scripts into postgres DBs. What learning path should I go down? I'm a solo actor at work with a lot of agency to decide my workflows. I see myself building small to medium size data collections over the next year or two at my job. Can someone point me to some learning? I have a CS degree etc. and my title in software engi…
We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
11–20 of 367 posts
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#12Data science & engineering should be treated as a single collection of skill-sets. Lacking ETL experience is a major deficit, considering how prevalent that kind of work is.
This might just be my personal biases coming through. I consider myself a "full-stack" data scientist & engineer. But because data scientists who can work on the backends are rare, I always end up doing the plumbing while other people do the fun analysis work.
I think companies that are data "science" heavy are going to be at huge disadvantage soon. Tools like Rekognition and Google AI APIs are making the model training & deployment aspect almost trivial. At some point, the only real work involved in this space will be the data "engineering."
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#13I teach engineers for a living. I struggle to see how this is not just a straw man argument based on colloquial usage of terms. It is just inferences drawn based on job ads that are rarely written by people doing the job and instead are effectively human-as-seo-optimized so the best candidates can find the job they hopefully fit for and not be too confused to apply for it.
It's not a straw man, I've seen it clear as day in several companies. When it comes to data science, it's "garbage in, garbage out". I've seen companies do lots of "data science" with a bunch of data scientists skilled in python and jupyter notebooks, only to discover a ton of work was useless because the incoming event data was tagged incorrectly due to a bug. The actual process of collecting, aggregating, cleaning…
And I would warn you from my experience teaching statistics to undergraduate engineers...they are not going to be much better. Regularly get 'hey we have this data what test can we run?' 'what are you trying to show?' 'we don't care we just need to run a statistical test' conversations.
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#14I'm a data engineer for most of my day right now, and a lot of it is done with ruby/python/shell scripts into postgres DBs. What learning path should I go down? I'm a solo actor at work with a lot of agency to decide my workflows. I see myself building small to medium size data collections over the next year or two at my job. Can someone point me to some learning? I have a CS degree etc. and my title in software engi…
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#15Thus many "data scientists" are juiced-up report-builders who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag.
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#16In other words: we need plumbers.
But the statement is also a bit like saying you can use plumbers to design and build a chemical refinement plant which also just moves chemicals from point A to point B. Or you can design a citywide sewer system with a bunch of plumbers.
There are many cleansing, refining, orchestration, dependency, data quality, governance and optimization problems to be solved and a wide variety of tools that have for whatever reason never grown into higher-level open source frameworks and are thus reimplemented in various forms in many places.
Data engineering (somewhat like software engineering actually) doesn't require much if any of the math and physics I took in engineering courses in college, but it does require rigorous systems thinking about how to design and build structures that withstand adverse conditions that are thought patterns common to other engineering practices, so I don't think it's a totally crazy title for the role.
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#17Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#18- Actually big data (so, not something you could grep...) will trigger your code in every possible way. You quickly learn that with trillions of input, the probabily to reach a bug is either 0% or 100%. In turn, you quickly learn to write good tests.
- You will learn distributed processing at a macro level, which in turn enlighten your thinking at a micro level. For example, even though the order of magnitudes are different, hitting data over network versus on disk is very much like hitting data on disk versus in cache. Except that when the difference ends up being in hours or days, you become much more sensible to that, so it's good training for your thoughts.
- Data engineering is full of product decisions. What's often called data "cleaning" is in fact one of the import product decisions made in a company, and a data engineer will be consistently exposed to his company product, which I think makes for great personal development
- Data engineering is fascinating. In adtech for example, logs of where ads are displayed are an unfiltered window on the rest of humanity, for the better or the worse. But it definitely expands your views on what the "average" person actually does on its computer (spoiler : it's mainly watching porn...), and challenges quite a bit what you might think is "normal"
- You'll be plumbing technologies from all over the web, which might or might not be good news for you.
So yeah, data engineering is great ! It's not harder than other specialties for developers, but imo, it's one of the fun ones !
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#19I teach engineers for a living. I struggle to see how this is not just a straw man argument based on colloquial usage of terms. It is just inferences drawn based on job ads that are rarely written by people doing the job and instead are effectively human-as-seo-optimized so the best candidates can find the job they hopefully fit for and not be too confused to apply for it.
So I think that the delineation between the scientist working with the content, and the Engineers who actually provide the mechanics for it is very fair. If there is a question mark here - it's really how much value are we deriving from all of these data people? Where is all the ML that's changing our lives? Search, Alexa and TikTok, I can see it. In the future obviously vision systems for autonomous cars etc.. But I…
If the article is trying to make a point about skill development and diversification, I'm totally on board. Bifurcating the roles instead is going to be less effective.
To the value point...my sense has been we are seeing the Webcommerce 1.0 bubble Machine Learning edition. Lots of uses of it, not all of them have value. I am excited for where we will be in 10 or 15 years, but I suspect the difference will be huge. If you put me to a guess, I would say better data handling practices and ethics will likely be the linchpins of value creation vs. using tools for the sake of tools.
Re: We don't need data scientists, we need data engineers
#20I teach engineers for a living. I struggle to see how this is not just a straw man argument based on colloquial usage of terms. It is just inferences drawn based on job ads that are rarely written by people doing the job and instead are effectively human-as-seo-optimized so the best candidates can find the job they hopefully fit for and not be too confused to apply for it.
It's not a straw man, I've seen it clear as day in several companies. When it comes to data science, it's "garbage in, garbage out". I've seen companies do lots of "data science" with a bunch of data scientists skilled in python and jupyter notebooks, only to discover a ton of work was useless because the incoming event data was tagged incorrectly due to a bug. The actual process of collecting, aggregating, cleaning…
Then they are not scientists. They have a label "scientist" but lack of rigor of actual science.
I don't see why changing the label to "engineer" would suddenly make them have rigor.