This is a technical post about what I’ve discovered in creating my own custom URL shortener. Hopefully, you can learn to do the same things I did, and my experience will save you some headaches if it’s something you’re interesting in trying.
It’s a complex world, and we are constantly making decisions. Just imagine the number of decisions we make about breakfast: How big a breakfast should I have? Should I have coffee? If so, how much? Should I have toast? Should I use butter? Should I have one piece or two? Should I cut the toast? If so, should they be cut into rectangles or triangles? Should I keep the crust? Should I have juice? Should it be apple juice or orange juice? How about milk? I haven’t even gotten to the pancakes, waffles, syrup, sausage, cereal, bacon… (mmm, bacon…)
Imagine a guy with glasses who used to model baseball stats and play online poker nailing the outcome of the 2012 elections. And when I say “nailing”, I mean that he correctly predicted the U.S. Presidential contest in every one of the 50 states (and nearly every U.S. Senate race, too). He even performed better than some of the most widely-used polling firms. Now imagine that he gives his thoughts on making these types of predictions. That’s exactly what Nate Silver does in his new book The Signal and the Noise" target="_blank">The Signal and the Noise.
60 Minutes aired a piece last night about scientific fraud at Duke University, where data was fabricated in order to support alleged discoveries in individualized cancer therapies. As a result of these investigations, a number of previously published scientific articles have been retracted.
Stephen Wolfram is doing it again. I’m a big fan of Wolfram (you can read some of my other posts here, here, and here…), and am always intrigued by what he comes up with. A couple of days ago, Wolfram launched his latest contribution to data science and computational understanding – Wolfram|Alpha Pro.
Here’s an overview of what the new Pro version of Wolfram|Alpha can provide:
With Wolfram|Alpha Pro, you can compute with your own data. Just input numeric or tabular data right in your browser, and Pro will automatically analyze it—effortlessly handling not just pure numbers, but also dates, places, strings, and more.
Upload 60+ types of data, sound, text, and other files to Wolfram|Alpha Pro for automatic analysis and computation. CSV, XLS, TXT, WAV, 3DS, HDF, GXL, XML…
Zoom in to see the details of any output—rendering it at a larger size and higher resolution.
Perform longer computations as a Wolfram|Alpha Pro subscriber by requesting extra time on the Wolfram|Alpha compute servers when you need it.
Licenses of prototying and analysis software go for several thousand dollars (Matlab, IDL, even Mathematica) – student versions can be had for a few hundred dollars, but you can’t leverage data science for business purposes on student licenses.
Wolfram|Alpha Pro lets anyone with a computer, an internet connection, and a small budget to leverage the power of data science. Right now, you can get a free trial subscription, and from there, the costs are $4.99/month. This price is introductory, but it could be sedutive enough to attract a lot of users (I’ve already signed up – all you need for the free trial is an e-mail address…)
One option that I find really interesting is Wolfram’s creation of the Computable Document Format (CDF), which interactivity lets you get dynamic versions of existing Wolfram|Alpha output as well as access to new content using interactive controls, 3D rotation, and animation. It’s like having Wolfram|Alpha is embedded in the document.
I had attended a Wolfram Science Conference back in 2006 and saw the potential for such a document format back then. There were a number of presenters who later wrote up their work into a paper, published by the journal Complex Systems. Since many of the presentations utilized a real interactivity with the data, I could see where much of the insight would be lost when people tried to write things down and limit their visualizations to simple, static graphs and figures.
I remember contacting Jean Buck at Wolfram Research, and recommending such a format. Who knows whether that had any impact, but I’m certainly glad to see that this is finally becoming a reality. I actually got the opportunity to meet Wolfram at the conference (he even signed a copy of his Cellular Automata and Complexity for me… – Jean was kind enough to arrange that for me – thanks, Jean!)
If you’re interested in data science and have a spare $5 this month, try out Wolfram|Alpha Pro!
- 1 in 3 scientists admit to using questionable research practices
- 1 in 50 admits falsifying or fabricating data outright
- Among biomedical researcher trainees at UC-San Diego, 81% said they would modify or fabricate results to win a grant or publish a paper
This is obvious disturbing, and worth highlighting to try and root these things out. Science is about finding the truth – no matter what it is – and as more businesses start using data science in order to drive business outcomes, we need to make sure that science is about being honest – with the truth and with ourselves.
The scientific method was developed to provide the best way to figure out what the truth is, given the data we’ve got. It doesn’t make perfect decisions (no method can), but it’s the best method available.
Real scientists (the ones not highlighted in Jen’s research) care about what the data is actually saying and discovering the truth. When someone cares about something else other than the truth (money, celebrity, fame, etc.), then bad science is what you get. Of course, when there are people involved, sometimes the truth isn’t the top priority.
Great infographic, Jen! You can find it here…
The first comes from TechMASH about data science being the next big thing. The primary nugget of note is that the supply of employees with the needed skills as data scientists – those people who really understand how to pull relevant information out of data reliably – is going to have a tough time meeting demand. Here’s an interesting infographic on the current disconnects – for example, while 37% of “business intelligence” professional studied business in school, 42% of today’s “data scientists” studied computer science, engineering, and natural sciences. This highlights the increasing demand for students that have solid mathematics backgrounds – it’s becoming more about knowing how you pull information from data, regardless of application.
Don’t get me wrong – to be effective applying data science, you need two things: a subject matter expert that understands what makes sense and what doesn’t, and someone who really understands data to pull out the information. Sometimes that can reside within one person, but it’s rare and takes many years of training to acquire the necessary excellence in both fields. And as the demands for data analysis grow, these two areas will likely form into distinct disciplines with interesting partnership opportunities being created.
The definition of data science is still being defined, but I’m convinced it will have huge impact in the next five years. And while the science aspects of data are starting to be defined, the engineering aspects of data and analytics are truly in their infancy…
On the same thread, here’s a Forbes article by Tom Groenfeldt on the need for data scientists, or Excel jockeys, or whatever they will be called in the future. For some companies, the move to “data science” is quite apparent, but for others, the current assemblance of business professionals that have figured out the ins-and-outs of Excel spreadsheets work quite well. This is likely a snapshot of where things are today, but I do believe that as the questions we ask of the data get more complicated, we will clearly see the need for a more rigorous science-based discipline to data wrangling…
The last tidbit is from the Wall Street Journal about the healthcare field being the next big area for Big Data. I do think that healthcare is ripe for leveraging data, and I’ve written other posts on the subject. One former Chief Medical Officer that I spoke with mentioned that one of the big problems is just getting the data useable in the first place. He said that, as of today, 85% of all medical records are still in paper form. The figure seems a bit high to me, but I don’t really know how many patient records in various individual doctor’s offices are still sitting in folders on shelves.
There has been a big push lately, spurred by financial support from the U.S government, for upgrading to electronic health records (EHR). This will help to solve the data collection problem – if you can’t get data into an electronic format, you can’t utilize information technologies to pull information out of the data.
I ran across this article from the Independent today about the impacts of data algorithms, the ethics of data mining, and the future of our lives in an automated, data-crunching world. Below is a quote from the article by Jaron Lanier, musician, computer scientist and author of the bestseller You Are Not a Gadget.
Algorithms themselves are a form of creativity. The problem is the illusion that they’re free-standing. If you start to think that information isn’t just a mask behind which people are hiding, if you forget that, you’ll pay a price for that way of thinking. It will cause you to be less creative.
If you show me an algorithm that dehumanises, impoverishes, manipulates or spies upon people,” he continues, “that same core maths can be applied differently. In every case. Take Facebook’s new Timeline feature [a diary-style way of displaying personal information]. It’s an idea that has been proposed since the 1980s [by Lanier himself]. But there are two problems with it. One, it’s owned by Facebook; what happens if Facebook goes bankrupt? Your life disappears – that’s weird. And two, it becomes fodder for advertisers to manipulate you. That’s creepy. But its underlying algorithms, if packaged in a different way, could be wonderful because they address a human cognitive need.
I think this is a really great read for anyone who’s interested in data, algorithms, and their impact on society – there’s a lot of really good stuff to take in. You can read the entire article here…
It appears that Princess Leia and Captain Kirk are in a bit of interstellar combat, albeit 30+ years later. And regardless of what Kirk has to say about it, I think that Star Wars rules! So, the big question is, why are we even talking about this?…
Well, back in September, William Shatner, who portrayed Captain Kirk on the original Star Trek series, posted a YouTube video about how Star Trek was really better than Star Wars – how Lucas’ space opera was really “derivative” of Gene Roddenberry’s creation by 10-20 years.
Well, a couple of weeks ago, Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the original Star Wars trilogy of movies, had to call Shatner out, posting her own video rebutting the critique.
Below are the videos to both Shatner’s original post, and Fisher’s reply. Personally, I’d rather see the original Kirk and Leia duke it out, but I guess we’ll have to settle for their earthly thespians…