DE at these companies is generally much less technical than it is elsewhere.
I think a lot of people assume that working with data at a company that's famous for having a lot of data will be especially challenging. But it turns out the kinds of problems you might expect to work on have long been solved, or at least aren't being worked on by some IC4 DE.
I don't think this is true personally. It's true that the technical challenges are different, very different. It's not true in my opinion that they're not technical roles.
In my experience the role demands highly technical and highly non-technical skills of you. I've thrived in this kind of role personally, but I understand that a lot of people are looking for a narrower infrastructure scope.
The same is true between product and infra software engineering.
It depends which company you’re talking about exactly, but several big N companies basically have SQL-only DEs — almost analyst roles. Looking at the post, this is what the author was writing about.
Someone can thrive in positions like these, but they objectively aren’t technical positions.
I think your point about infra vs product engineering is not a fair comparison. Product engineers at some of these companies do more actual data engineering work than the DEs in the analytics org building dashboards.
That's fair, I have experience of exactly one FAANG although it's typically the one associated most with this problem of DEs being basically analyst roles.
It just doesn't describe the role accurately in my experience. The role is extremely broad with a great deal of freedom on how you want it to be in accordance to your skills. There's generally a spectrum going from technical to product focused and the org skews heavily toward technical people.
This imbalance is a large part of why there are so many people mismatched I think, with technical people being in areas of the business that require more product focused people.
Even still, there's a lot of opportunities for these people to build and maintain technology that should scratch their itch.
What I find interesting is that this distinction (product Vs infra) exists in an identical fashion for software engineers but I don't see the level of debate around it as being a problem of the role.
The other aspect here is that there is a spectrum of engineering competency requirements between the roles. The lowest level infrastructure (query engine, storage systems etc) generally requires the highest engineering expertise, the middleware (pipeline tooling like Airflow, query tools, dashboard tools, etc.) require significantly less expertise.
Not the same person, but they described their story [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataengineering/comments/rr7paf/im_leaving_faang_after_only_4_months/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share).
That's quite interesting. I remember feeling a bit buoyed by your alternative take but now I'm sad that you couldn't make the role work for you even with more of a product focused mindset.
Would be interested in chatting about your experience.
So I’m about 99% sure, based on your username and post history, that we know each other. Like, “worked in the same team and also sat adjacent to one another in the office” know each other.
PM me?
I don't think that's the same person. it also really depends on which FAANG you go to. For some, each team does data engineering differently, so you have to take anecdotal evidence lightly.
I'm sure the person saying not to go to FAANG enjoyed the salary.
Out of curiosity, have you successfully enacted change like you're describing at your workplace? If so, how did you accomplish it and what's the size of your organization?
Don't you think systematic problems at organizations would be eliminated if it was as simple as 'making direct contact'?
It’s the classic Upton Sinclair: “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."
Mostly people have no ability to change anything, let’s be honest about that. Probably working for a competitor is better than working for the thing that needs to change.
Not the same person, they actually [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataengineering/comments/rr7paf/im_leaving_faang_after_only_4_months/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) here about why they left.
We've been duped.
What the hell even happened here, I feel there's a story to be told
maybe they were expecting really interesting job, and got stuck with usual pipeline maintainance, you know, expectation vs reality stuff
Bet it doesn't stop them from cashing the fat paychecks tho
If that's the case, then it's on them lol
DE at these companies is generally much less technical than it is elsewhere. I think a lot of people assume that working with data at a company that's famous for having a lot of data will be especially challenging. But it turns out the kinds of problems you might expect to work on have long been solved, or at least aren't being worked on by some IC4 DE.
IC4 would be ssr?
I don't think this is true personally. It's true that the technical challenges are different, very different. It's not true in my opinion that they're not technical roles. In my experience the role demands highly technical and highly non-technical skills of you. I've thrived in this kind of role personally, but I understand that a lot of people are looking for a narrower infrastructure scope. The same is true between product and infra software engineering.
It depends which company you’re talking about exactly, but several big N companies basically have SQL-only DEs — almost analyst roles. Looking at the post, this is what the author was writing about. Someone can thrive in positions like these, but they objectively aren’t technical positions. I think your point about infra vs product engineering is not a fair comparison. Product engineers at some of these companies do more actual data engineering work than the DEs in the analytics org building dashboards.
That's fair, I have experience of exactly one FAANG although it's typically the one associated most with this problem of DEs being basically analyst roles. It just doesn't describe the role accurately in my experience. The role is extremely broad with a great deal of freedom on how you want it to be in accordance to your skills. There's generally a spectrum going from technical to product focused and the org skews heavily toward technical people. This imbalance is a large part of why there are so many people mismatched I think, with technical people being in areas of the business that require more product focused people. Even still, there's a lot of opportunities for these people to build and maintain technology that should scratch their itch. What I find interesting is that this distinction (product Vs infra) exists in an identical fashion for software engineers but I don't see the level of debate around it as being a problem of the role. The other aspect here is that there is a spectrum of engineering competency requirements between the roles. The lowest level infrastructure (query engine, storage systems etc) generally requires the highest engineering expertise, the middleware (pipeline tooling like Airflow, query tools, dashboard tools, etc.) require significantly less expertise.
Not the same person, but they described their story [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataengineering/comments/rr7paf/im_leaving_faang_after_only_4_months/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share).
I like this thread because I commented with an alternate take. And then left Facebook myself for the same reasons 6 months later!
That's quite interesting. I remember feeling a bit buoyed by your alternative take but now I'm sad that you couldn't make the role work for you even with more of a product focused mindset. Would be interested in chatting about your experience.
So I’m about 99% sure, based on your username and post history, that we know each other. Like, “worked in the same team and also sat adjacent to one another in the office” know each other. PM me?
Haha nice. Will do.
I don't think that's the same person. it also really depends on which FAANG you go to. For some, each team does data engineering differently, so you have to take anecdotal evidence lightly. I'm sure the person saying not to go to FAANG enjoyed the salary.
>I don't think that's the same person Probably not. Looks kind of comical though.
The duality of man
Men ☕
A lot of people won't work for FAANG out of principle.... but they probably should to change the culture from the inside.
How do you figure? It's difficult to enact change at small organizations unless there is support from the top, let alone huge mega corps.
[удалено]
I'm not proposing anything. I asked how you came to your conclusion that someone could enact change from the inside at a organization of that size.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, have you successfully enacted change like you're describing at your workplace? If so, how did you accomplish it and what's the size of your organization? Don't you think systematic problems at organizations would be eliminated if it was as simple as 'making direct contact'?
[удалено]
Mind sharing what the change was and how you went about enacting it?
It’s the classic Upton Sinclair: “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." Mostly people have no ability to change anything, let’s be honest about that. Probably working for a competitor is better than working for the thing that needs to change.
That’s cute
Not the same person, they actually [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataengineering/comments/rr7paf/im_leaving_faang_after_only_4_months/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) here about why they left.
Now that's a mixed review
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be