I'm a genetic engineer at a large pharma company. Genetic engineering of human model systems is my specialty. If I were a malicious actor, I could not do anything useful with the genome of any one person. Most peoples genomes are boring and at best sway the predisposition for disease by a modest degree. Exposing infidelity is honestly the best I can come up with.
i always thought that its valuable when you have enough data from an insurance pov? is that a myth?
If you're worried about this, you also need to be worried about them knowing what zip code you were born in.
> Who knows who will buy all this data after bankruptcy... People who think having millions of people dna is worth something. I could think of company working with private investigators or even governments. Your dna sample is part of 23andMe valuation right now, I wouldn’t have hope even if it says your data is removed on their website, there are still backup.
Or health insurers looking for markers of disease / chronic illness
In the US, they wouldn’t be allowed to use that data to underwrite policies:
Even if you haven't personally used their service, if any close relatives have, they already have a sizable amount of information on your genome. They maintain the equivalent of "shadow profiles" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile ) as part of their data model for "ancestry" modeling purposes - for example inferring a paternal haplogroup based on data uploaded by genetic relatives. I can only hope at the…
I'm a genetic engineer at a large pharma company. Genetic engineering of human model systems is my specialty. If I were a malicious actor, I could not do anything useful with the genome of any one person. Most peoples genomes are boring and at best sway the predisposition for disease by a modest degree. Exposing infidelity is honestly the best I can come up with.
Thank you for saying this.
I’ve done some of these saliva samples and I’ve seen the freak outs about what happens if “they” get my genome. But I cannot for the life of me figure out what they would do with it maliciously? It’s not like it can be used to sign up for a credit card or whatever.
They told me I have an average to lower risk for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. All I wanted to know, since my grandpa died of Parkinson's.
you could have asked you primary care doctor for a test, instead of paying a company for the privilege of creating a dna map to sell to law enforcement.
23andme sells this for a set price, advertised on their website.
A clinic usually asks you to sign a form that says you are responsible for paying whatever they and an unaffiliated laboratory end up saying you owe. Minimum being $250, and maximum being unknown.
Your genome can be scavenged from the air. It is not information we are capable of keeping private.
But can it be isolated from the myriad of life floating around? I doubt that specificity would be economically profitable. The police did catch the Golden State Killer by scavenging a used coffee cup or somesuch, however.
Anything that can be obtained from your discarded tissue or Starbucks cup isn’t really something you can hope to keep secret.
Even if you haven't personally used their service, if any close relatives have, they already have a sizable amount of information on your genome. They maintain the equivalent of "shadow profiles" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile ) as part of their data model for "ancestry" modeling purposes - for example inferring a paternal haplogroup based on data uploaded by genetic relatives. I can only hope at the…
I'm a genetic engineer at a large pharma company. Genetic engineering of human model systems is my specialty. If I were a malicious actor, I could not do anything useful with the genome of any one person. Most peoples genomes are boring and at best sway the predisposition for disease by a modest degree. Exposing infidelity is honestly the best I can come up with.
You are not speaking from a position of a grifter though. I don't think it's a stretch that some YC funded startup could emerge and claim that they can map and predict everyone's entire actions/personalities/characteristics through their genome, heavily misinterpreting PGS/GWAS.
I don't think they would care much for scientific validity in this case. It won't matter to them if the methods used are reliable. All they'll get is appraisal from mainstream media for their revolutionary approach, further ingraining social darwinism.
This. The same thing is happening with Tesla stock. Since it's such a bit part of the S&P500, so half of retail investors buy it in their basket of portfolios and 401ks at trades at 10x it's worth on paper by looking at fundamentals.
That reasoning would lead to concluding all the businesses in SP500 are traded at 10x their worth on paper. Or at least all the ones with market caps greater than Tesla. Edit, since I hit posting limit. To pooper: > Since it's such a big part of the S&P500 The conclusion is based on that premise, so any other business that satisfies that premise should also lead to the same conclusion. To llm: > I think their point i…
I think their point is that businesses at the top of the S&P500 are traded at sentiment and momentum based values that are pretty disconnected from a logical P/E, which is valid enough. The multiple happens to be 10x in Tesla's case, it's not 10x for all of them (in the case of Saudi Aramco it's probably less than 1x), but it's much less of an informed valuation than the sheer volume of trading would make you think.
This. The same thing is happening with Tesla stock. Since it's such a bit part of the S&P500, so half of retail investors buy it in their basket of portfolios and 401ks at trades at 10x it's worth on paper by looking at fundamentals.
That reasoning would lead to concluding all the businesses in SP500 are traded at 10x their worth on paper. Or at least all the ones with market caps greater than Tesla. Edit, since I hit posting limit. To pooper: > Since it's such a big part of the S&P500 The conclusion is based on that premise, so any other business that satisfies that premise should also lead to the same conclusion. To llm: > I think their point i…
Can you please elaborate on this? I am unable to follow the logic here.
A lot of us trusted and supported her because she was married to Sergey. No one was expecting that once she had the data she'd divorce him and go full Marissa Mayer.
When I saw the headline, I wondered why Sergey hadn't bought it for his spare change. I guess this is why.
He also married (and divorced) the woman that bankrolled RFK Jr. I would guess his office affairs have caused a lot of drama at Alphabet.