Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It's frustrating how the data discipline is split up into so many different job titles. I regularly have to work with data engineers, data analysts, analytics engineers, data scientists, machine learning scientists, and machine learning engineers. Each view their role really narrowly, so you need to pull in a lot of people to get something done. It's often easier to just do the work yourself.

I get that some specialisation is useful, but I would like to see more T-shaped data folks.

loading story #50483060
Yeah, as a "T-shaded data folk" (have worked as a data analyst, data scientist, data engineer, and machine learning engineer, so I think I'm close to a full bingo care) in data, I agree!

I think the specialisms are really helpful for hiring - data engineering and data science involve a lot of different things so it's a lot easier to hire someone if you don't require skill in both.

That said, I think we have a culture problem in defining our roles narrowly, I've seen data scientists look down at data-pipeline parts of their job, and ignoring model latency and deployment; data engineers be deeply uncurious around what happens to the data after they put it in a warehouse; etc.

The best people I've worked with, within data and elsewhere, are the ones who are curious about every aspect of the stack, even if they mostly focus on one side.

> Yeah, as a "T-shaded data folk" (have worked as a data analyst, data scientist, data engineer, and machine learning engineer, so I think I'm close to a full bingo care) in data, I agree!

Me too. There were no data engineers when I was a baby data scientist (15 years ago now).

I think that this was a terrible idea (the splitting out of roles). I remember once being asked in an interview if I was able to pull my own SQL or would I need an analyst. That kind of split always struck me as absurd, given that the only way to build a decent model is to know the data very well first..

> That said, I think we have a culture problem in defining our roles narrowly, I've seen data scientists look down at data-pipeline parts of their job, and ignoring model latency and deployment; data engineers be deeply uncurious around what happens to the data after they put it in a warehouse; etc.

I honestly feel like this is driven by the titles. I will note that most of the unsuccessful/bad data scientists I've met were the ones who only cared about the models. As I always said to people, I can run sklearn in a loop over model families if that's all you bring.

> The best people I've worked with, within data and elsewhere, are the ones who are curious about every aspect of the stack, even if they mostly focus on one side.

This is probably just a good signal in tech in general, some curiosity is really required to be successful in this industry.

Agreed, after decades writing scala, go, rust and python and building high throughput analysis systems, I'm now not allowed to touch any of our infrastructure, or write any airflow jobs because our teams got partitioned into data engineering and data analysts, and I was given the analyst team.

30 min livebug fix and review for me on a job I specced out? Ticket to another team to review and schedule for next sprint and thus 2 weeks of metadata likely lost or malformed.

These setups look great (but full of invisible friction) when things are going well but shit the bed as soon as you come across the simplest of human errors that needs a solution.

loading story #50482777
Weird. I feel the other way. I do too many things from all areas that none of the titles fit me. I build pipelines, analyze data, engineer the infrastructure around data orchestration, etc.
loading story #50482547
It used to be the case that a "data engineer" was just a software engineer that was good at data-related things (maybe they were good at Kafka, airflow, DBT, knew why you'd pick postgres for one job and Clickhouse for another, etc).

Then the BI people (who had never written a line of code except maybe some SQL) got jealous, started calling themselves "data engineers", broke everything ("what do you mean 'we need tests???'"), and ruined the title.

I have a different take on this. I have a friend who used to work at a bank as an analyst, and he had a hardcore finance/math background, and was a self-taught R/Python/SQL coder before this whole 'big data' thing became popular a decade ago.

Back then his bank started building a data science/engineering dept, and he jumped ship, and essentially did the same work for 2x the salary. Let me tell you, understanding Black-Scholes and what the data actually means and how to source it, as well as what finance people actually are looking for is a skill that's 1000x as difficult to get as learning R/Python/Pandas etc.

Once upon a time they were called DBAs.
My favorite title is 'digital prostitute' - we do anything if you pay us money :D
loading story #50483038
loading story #50482592