Podcasts about wojcicki

Just when it looked like 23andMe was selling to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, founder Anne Wojcicki placed a bid through her new nonprofit in an attempt to win it back at the eleventh hour. Lila MacLellan, Senior Writer at Fortune, joins David to discuss Wojcicki's leadership style, and what the new version of 23andMe might look like under her control. Later, Alexi Horowitz-Ghazi of NPR's Planet Money shares what happens to people's sensitive health data when the company holding that information files for bankruptcy — and how consumers can protect themselves. Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to Business Wars on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App or on Apple Podcasts. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/business-wars/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Anne Wojcicki, founder of 23andMe, has successfully repurchased the genetic testing firm out of bankruptcy through her non-profit TTAM for $305 million, surpassing a prior winning bid from Regeneron. The deal, which excludes the company's liabilities, may ease public concerns over genetic data transfers, given Wojcicki's continued leadership. The acquisition still requires court approval, while … Continue reading Anne Wojcicki Reclaims 23andMe in $305M Deal #1827 → The post Anne Wojcicki Reclaims 23andMe in $305M Deal #1827 appeared first on Geek News Central.

Jennifer Wojcicki joined the Front Porch Morning Show to give some more information on the threat of sever weather today.

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports 23andMe files for bankruptcy.

Hour 3: The Tara Show - “Trump on the Job with Tara and Lee” “Winter Weather Update with Jenifer Wojcicki” “Dems Desperate to Regain the Narrative" “The Biggest Snake in Office” full 1850 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:11:04 +0000 L3bNHJRSmjEu2ZbrJlWSHIA2tDkWeTfG news The Tara Show news Hour 3: The Tara Show - “Trump on the Job with Tara and Lee” “Winter Weather Update with Jenifer Wojcicki” “Dems Desperate to Regain the Narrative" “The Biggest Snake in Office” Tara presides over the Upstate's #1 all news/talk morning show every weekday on News/Talk 989 WORD.Tara's faithful listeners are affectionately known as "Tara-ists" because of their passion and participation in the show. Tara was named 2021 Best News Talk Show and Best overall Personality, AGAIN, by the South Carolina Broadcasters Association! Tara took home the same honors in 2018 and was also named 2016 "Personality of the Year!" In addition, Tara has also won over two dozen state and national journalism awards for column writing, news reporting and investigative reporting while working for three newspapers and writing for a variety of national publications. She won a first place reporting award from the North Carolina Press Association for an investigative series about the weaknesses in Charlotte's overburdened court system, which regularly let murderers off the hook with less than 15 years in prison. Due to her work, that system has been reformed. Tara is also a winner of the prestigious first place Green Eyeshade Award, a national award for column writing from The Society of Professional Journalists. Tara took to the airwaves about 15 years ago to do a radio show heard up and down the coast and fell in love with bypassing her editors to talk straight to the people. Tara hasn't stopped reporting, and still brings her investigative journalism to the show. Tara is a mom, wife and talk radio convert-- and weekday mornings she's live and local on News/Talk 989 WORD. Are you a "Tara-ist"? It's time to get captured!      2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2F

Hour 3: The Tara Show - “The Media Struggles to Cover-Up California Fire Facts” “The Coming Winter Weather with Weatherology's Jenifer Wojcicki” full 1858 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 15:37:32 +0000 vHaPwc0ZhiNCXQv0oTQuyeMHUC0G7KA2 news The Tara Show news Hour 3: The Tara Show - “The Media Struggles to Cover-Up California Fire Facts” “The Coming Winter Weather with Weatherology's Jenifer Wojcicki” Tara presides over the Upstate's #1 all news/talk morning show every weekday on News/Talk 989 WORD.Tara's faithful listeners are affectionately known as "Tara-ists" because of their passion and participation in the show. Tara was named 2021 Best News Talk Show and Best overall Personality, AGAIN, by the South Carolina Broadcasters Association! Tara took home the same honors in 2018 and was also named 2016 "Personality of the Year!" In addition, Tara has also won over two dozen state and national journalism awards for column writing, news reporting and investigative reporting while working for three newspapers and writing for a variety of national publications. She won a first place reporting award from the North Carolina Press Association for an investigative series about the weaknesses in Charlotte's overburdened court system, which regularly let murderers off the hook with less than 15 years in prison. Due to her work, that system has been reformed. Tara is also a winner of the prestigious first place Green Eyeshade Award, a national award for column writing from The Society of Professional Journalists. Tara took to the airwaves about 15 years ago to do a radio show heard up and down the coast and fell in love with bypassing her editors to talk straight to the people. Tara hasn't stopped reporting, and still brings her investigative journalism to the show. Tara is a mom, wife and talk radio convert-- and weekday mornings she's live and local on News/Talk 989 WORD. Are you a "Tara-ist"? It's time to get captured!      2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2Frss.ampe

If Silicon Valley has an official matriarch, it might be the Palo Alto based educator and writer Esther Wojcicki. Popularly known as the “Godmother of Silicon Valley”, Wojcicki is the mother of former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, 23andMe founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki and anthropologist and professor Janet Wojcicki. And, of course, she's also the mother-in-law of Google co-founder Sergey Brin. So how does “Woj”, who, as the founder of the Media Arts program, taught for many years at Palo Alto High School, make sense of the last twenty years in which the zeitgeist has shifted from an evangelical faith in technological progress to a deep suspicion of it. And how does Wojcicki look back at her own family history in this period which has been marked by both astonishingly good fortune and terrible tragedy?Esther Wojcicki is an educator and the author of the 2019 bestseller, "How to Raise Successful People."Wojcicki's daughters are YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, 23andMe founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki and anthropologist and professor Janet Wojcicki. Wojcicki is founder of the Media Arts program at Palo Alto High School and vice chair of Creative Commons. Known as the "Godmother of Silicon Valley," she has been involved with GoogleEdu since its founding and helped establish the Google Teacher Academy. She is an expert in blended learning, the subject of her 2015 book "Moonshots in Education."Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

A storm is bringing winter weather conditions to parts of the country, including Salt Lake City and Denver, potentially impacting flights during a busy Thanksgiving travel week. Since Friday, airlines have dealt with winter weather and air traffic control staffing issues that have caused thousands of delays, but few cancellations. The FAA says Tuesday will see the highest number of scheduled flights.CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave traveled across the country with Southwest Airlines to show what one day in the life of a plane looks like.John Furner, president and CEO of Walmart U.S., speaks exclusively with "CBS Mornings" about the potential impact of President-elect Donald Trump's tariffs, what to expect this holiday shopping season and its new DEI initiatives. On Monday, Walmart confirmed it's rolling back some of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki discusses the company's future following a major data security incident that led to a $30 million settlement. 23andMe admitted no wrongdoing as a part of the proposed agreement. Wojcicki spoke exclusively to "CBS Mornings" co-host Gayle King.Brittney Griner and her wife Cherelle welcomed their son, Bash, in July. Now, they're sharing adorable family photos and looking ahead to their first Christmas together.From Emmy wins to Oscar nods, Colman Domingo reflects on his career and dives into his latest role in Netflix's "The Madness."Actor Danielle Pinnock joins "CBS Mornings" to talk about her role in the hit CBS comedy "Ghosts," where she plays a spirited 1920s jazz singer with plenty of sass.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

23andMe could get delisted from the Nasdaq after all 7 members of its board resigned this week. CEO Anne Wojcicki is a big name in Silicon Valley but has struggled to find a sustainable business model and shares are 99% off its peak valuation post-SPAC merger. Wojcicki is now hoping to pivot and take the company private by buying back all outstanding shares in what could be seen as a “founders mode” leadership move. 

Seven independent directors of 23andMe have resigned, leaving CEO Anne Wojcicki as the sole board member. The resignations follow a proposed $30 million settlement for a data breach lawsuit and a lack of financing in Wojcicki's plan to take the company private. Notable director Neal Mohan and others cited a strategic disconnect and a conflicting vision for the company, prompting their resignation. Wojcicki, co-founder of 23andMe, retains 49% of the voting power and had previously sought to buy remaining shares at 40 cents, a proposal rejected by a special committee. Wojcicki plans to search for new directors and asserts that going private could enhance long-term success. Following a significant decrease in stock value from $6 billion in 2021 to 34 cents per share, the company is at risk of delisting if its stock does not surpass $1 by November 4. The data breach affected nearly 7 million accounts and led to a class action lawsuit. 23andMe provides ancestry and health predisposition kits, along with involvement in drug development.Learn more on this news visit us at: https://greyjournal.net/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki died last week at the age of 56. WSJ's Miles Kruppa shares how Wojcicki developed a reputation as perhaps the most important Google employee that few people have heard of outside of the company's walls. Further Reading: -Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Dies at Age 56  -YouTube's Susan Wojcicki on Transforming the Video Service  Further Listening: -Why the DOJ Is Suing Google Again  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the first time in history, the Paris 2024 Olympics saw an equal number of men and women competing. But that's not always been the case - in fact, back in 1912, the father of the Olympic games Pierre de Coubertin said that having women compete in the games would be 'impractical, uninteresting, ungainly and, I do not hesitate to add, improper'. Luckily, the Olympics didn't just have the father of the games – it also had the MOTHER of games, Alice Milliat. BBC Mundo's Laura Garcia tells us all about this sometimes forgotten figure behind the Olympics.One of the most influential women in the tech industry has died. Susan Wojcicki, the former CEO of YouTube and one of Google's earliest employees, died on Friday at the age of 56 from lung cancer. Sheryl Sandberg, the former Chief Operating Officer at Meta, paid tribute to Wojcicki on Instagram, writing: "As one of the most important women leaders in tech — the first to lead a major company — she was dedicated to expanding opportunities for women across Silicon Valley. I don't believe my career would be what it is today without her unwavering support." Professor Gina Neff, executive director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology at University of Cambridge, discusses her impact.The Paris Paralympics are two weeks away, and Nuala is joined by archery champion Jodie Grinham. Having already won a silver medal in Rio and a gold at this year's European Para Cup, Jodie will be looking to win a medal again this summer. She has already broken one record, being the first member of Team GB's para team to compete whilst pregnant.The Wicker Man is regarded as a masterpiece of British cinema. But when the film was first released in 1973, it was a flop, and the director Robin Hardy was secretly relying on his wife Caroline to bankroll the entire production. Their son Justin Hardy talks to Nuala about the cache of long lost letters that revealed his mother's hidden role and about his documentary, Children of The Wicker Man.Mary Bridget Davies is playing Janis in A Night With Janis Joplin. It's a biographical musical about the life of Janis Joplin and her musical influences. It includes all the big Janis hits, including Piece of My Heart, Cry Baby, Me and Bobby McGee performed by Mary - a role she was Tony-nominated for in the Broadway version of the musical.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki passed away at the age of 56 from non-small cell lung cancer. A key figure in tech, Wojcicki was Google's 16th employee and played a significant role in the company's early development. She held degrees from Harvard University, the University of California-Santa Cruz, and an MBA from UCLA. In 1998, she rented her Menlo Park garage to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and joined Google as a marketing manager in 1999. She climbed the ranks to become Senior Vice President of AdWords and AdSense and later, in 2014, CEO of YouTube after Google's acquisition of the platform in 2006. Significant leaders in the tech industry, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged Wojcicki's impact on the field and her mentorship within the community.Learn more on this news visit us at: https://greyjournal.net/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

pWotD Episode 2657: Susan Wojcicki Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 582,020 views on Saturday, 10 August 2024 our article of the day is Susan Wojcicki.Susan Diane Wojcicki ( wuutch-ITS-kee; July 5, 1968 – August 9, 2024) was an American business executive who was the chief executive officer of YouTube from 2014 to 2023. Her net worth was estimated at $765 million in 2022.Wojcicki worked in the technology industry for over twenty years. She became involved in the creation of Google in 1998 when she rented out her garage as an office to the company's founders. She worked as Google's first marketing manager in 1999, and later led the company's online advertising business and original video service. After observing the success of YouTube, she suggested that Google should buy it; the deal was approved for $1.65 billion in 2006. She was appointed CEO of YouTube in 2014, serving until resigning in February 2023.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:13 UTC on Sunday, 11 August 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Susan Wojcicki on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Ruth.

The Daily Business and Finance Show - Sunday, 11 August 2024 We get our business and finance news from Seeking Alpha and you should too! Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium for more in-depth market news and help support this podcast. Free for 14-days! Please click here for more info: Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium News Today's headlines: Tesla pivots to pricier Cybertrucks; halts orders for cheapest version The U.S. uninsured rate hits 8%, a post-pandemic high Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki dies of lung cancer Rate cuts may impact big banks more negatively than regionals, analyst says Citi stays bullish on chips despite sell-off; Micron remains top pick Trending stocks this week as turbulent week comes to an end Catalyst Watch: Eyes on Walmart earnings, the July CPI print, and 13F filings 'Deadpool & Wolverine' surpasses $1B worldwide Explanations from OpenAI ChatGPT API with proprietary prompts. This podcast provides information only and should not be construed as financial or business advice. This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(8/3/2024-8/10/2024) Darkside of the beast. Tune in. patreon.com/isaiahnews #applepodcasts⁠ ⁠#spotifypodcasts⁠ ⁠#youtube #amazon⁠ ⁠#patreon⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/isaiah-m-edwards/support

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.Small biopharma and contract research organizations are increasingly adopting eClinical technology to keep up with regulatory and market demands for research innovation. They are paying attention to how these tools can help throughout the study lifecycle. The survey report explores 11 types of clinical trial technology and when they are used, as well as the challenges to tech adoption and how vendors can assist. The report also discusses optimism for the future and emphasizes the importance of data reliability.The Southern Blood Center is recovering from a ransomware attack, causing them to implement manual processing methods for blood. The 5th Circuit Court handed providers a legal victory in the no surprises litigation, vacating instructions that advantaged insurers. Tenet is selling a majority stake in five Alabama hospitals for $910 million to pay down debt and focus on ambulatory surgery centers. Healthcare industry trends include the use of virtual reality, robotics, and AI to improve patient engagement and clinical decision-making. Healthcare data breaches are on the rise, with an Arkansas-based provider exposing the information of over 375,000 people.Biotech entrepreneur Arie Belldegrun has launched a new 'science-first' credit firm called Symbiotic Capital with $600 million in committed capital. Roche has licensed Sangamo's technology for another shot at developing an Alzheimer's drug by repressing the gene that produces the protein tau. Biomarin is reducing spending on its hemophilia gene therapy, Roctavian, and focusing sales in the U.S., Italy, and Germany. Biotech startup Red Queen has received $55 million in funding to develop versatile antivirals, including a COVID treatment.Sangamo Therapeutics has secured an exclusive licensing agreement with Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, to develop novel genomic medicines for neurodegenerative diseases. Genentech will pay Sangamo $50 million in upfront fees and milestone payments as part of the potential $1.9 billion deal. In other news, Biomarin Pharmaceuticals is narrowing the focus of its hemophilia A gene therapy, Roctavian, to the U.S., Germany, and Italy in an effort to reduce costs and increase profitability by 2025.Pharma giants Pfizer, GSK, and Moderna are gearing up for the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season, which typically starts in the fall and peaks in the winter. RSV can be dangerous for infants and older individuals, leading to hospitalization and death. The FDA has approved three vaccines for RSV, but vaccination rates among adults over 60 are low.This week in biotech news, Jim Wilson, a prominent gene therapy researcher, is leaving UPenn to start two new spinouts. Otsuka has acquired startup Jnana in an $800 million deal, adding to the recent uptick in private biotech M&A. Biotech startup Airna has raised $60 million for RNA editing medicines, while 23andMe's board has rejected CEO Wojcicki's take-private proposal. Additionally, Biotech Red Queen has launched with $55 million to develop versatile antivirals.Stay informed with Biopharma Dive for all your biotech and pharma news needs!Support the Show.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world. Steward Health plans to lay off over 1,200 workers in Massachusetts and close two hospitals. Walgreens has reduced its stake in Cencora for $1.1 billion. The cost of healthcare data breaches is nearly $10 million in 2024, making healthcare the most expensive industry for data breaches. Employers are enhancing healthcare benefits despite rising costs, and Medicare has finalized a higher 2.9% inpatient payment rate for 2025. Virtual reality, robotics, and AI are transforming patient engagement, staff burnout, and clinical decision-making in the healthcare industry. Hospitals remain dissatisfied with Medicare's final rule despite the bump in payment rates.On August 5th, J&J launched the Velys spine surgical robotics and navigation platform, while Inspire received FDA approval for obstructive sleep apnea neurostimulator therapy. Philips is suing an independent lab over alleged errors in CPAP foam tests. Compliance hurdles with the FDA's lab developed test rule raise concerns about patient harm. The board of 23andMe rejected CEO Wojcicki's take-private proposal. J&J aims to compete with Stryker and Zimmer Biomet with its new surgical robotics portfolio. Inspire plans to launch its neurostimulator therapy device late in 2024. Philips claims an independent lab overestimated the threat of CPAP foam, leading to unnecessary recall efforts.Bristol Myers has halted Tigit drug research, while Lilly has resolved the shortage of Zepbound and Mounjaro. Biotech IPOs are vital for industry growth, with companies like Os Therapies and Actuate Therapeutics making moves in the market. Cell therapy is advancing in cancer care despite limited uptake, with biotech companies investing in its improvement. Pfizer discontinued late-stage gene therapy development for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), but other companies like RegenxBio and Capricor Therapeutics are making progress with their therapies. Oncology research is introducing new treatments like cell and gene therapies, revolutionizing cancer treatment.BioNTech reported a significant increase in losses in the second quarter of 2024, jumping to nearly $885 million compared to $208.5 million last year. The company is focusing on oncology amidst the impact of COVID-19. Lilly's drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound are no longer in shortage, according to the FDA. Bristol Myers Squibb is backing out of a $1.5 billion deal with Agenus for a bispecific antibody program, while Bayer's finerenone met its primary endpoint in a phase III heart failure trial. The pharmaceutical industry continues to see developments in various therapeutic areas, including Alzheimer's disease and rare diseases.Support the Show.

Ty Meulemans and Ty's physical Therapist, Ben Wojcicki join the WKLH Miracle Marathon benefitting Children's Wisconsin presented by Mars Family Foundation to share Ty's journey from a torn ACL and meniscus & back to regular activity in less than a year through physical therapy thanks to Children's.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.In today's episode, we have several news updates from the industry. Let's dive right in!First up, we have a webinar titled "Navigating Preclinical Drug Development Challenges with Lipid-Based Formulations." This webinar discusses how biopharma teams are utilizing lipid-based formulations (LBF) to improve the bioavailability of challenging molecules and reduce the transition time and cost requirements for clinical trials. The highlights of the webinar include strategies for dosing lipid formulations in preclinical models, key considerations for improving bioavailability through LBF, and the regulatory and technical nuances involved in transitioning preclinical LBF to viable clinical dosage forms.Next, we have a case study from Cambrex on their process to enable GMP production under tight time pressure for a first-in-human clinical trial. This case study highlights the importance of route development and designing synthesis for GMP production. Cambrex's experts successfully developed a robust and high-yield process to enable GMP production within a tight timeline for a first-in-human clinical trial.Moving on, Biogen and Sage have set the price of their postpartum depression pill at $15,900, which is significantly lower than initial predictions. This move aims to make the treatment more accessible to patients. Additionally, obesity drug biotech startup OrsoBio has raised $60 million in a series A funding round to develop new therapies for obesity and related metabolic disorders.In another news update, Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, discusses the company's transition into a "full-fledged biotech" in an in-depth interview. Wojcicki explains how 23andMe is venturing into drug research and development, going beyond its initial focus on at-home genetics testing. Ventyx, a biotech company, has revised its plans for its tyk2 drug after lackluster study data, and Bristol Myers is paying $100 million for access to a blood and bone marrow cancer drug developed by Orum Therapeutics.Shifting gears, the Biden administration is proposing a rule to cap broker payment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans in Massachusetts to prevent marketing misconduct. Kaiser Permanente reported a rebound in investment and operating income in Q3, Envision Healthcare has emerged from bankruptcy restructuring, and Surescripts has acquired drug alternatives company ActiveRadar.Hospitals are also facing challenges in preparing for extreme weather events caused by climate change. Financial and data challenges are making it difficult for hospitals to develop effective disaster planning strategies. In other news, Cigna is reportedly exploring the possibility of shedding its Medicare Advantage business, and there is an ongoing battle over drug prices between Secretaries Becerra and Azar. A new California law offers protection from steep ambulance bills.Moving on to the pharmaceutical industry, Novartis has signed a potential $1.3 billion deal with Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical for the global rights to develop an oral HDAC6 inhibitor. Ventyx Biosciences has decided to discontinue the development of its psoriasis candidate despite positive results in a phase II study. Vertex Pharmaceuticals reported third-quarter revenue of $2.48 billion, falling short of expectations. The Department of Health and Human Services is considering removing Johnson & Johnson's psoriasis treatment Stelara from Medicare drug price negotiations.Next, we have an article discussing Anne Wojcicki, CEO and founder of 23andMe, and her ambitions to disrupt the healthcare industry through genomics. Wojcicki's interest in healthcare began during her childhood, and she has positioned 23andMe as a leader in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and genetic data partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. The article highlights an in-depth interview with Wojcicki, wher

Anne Wojcicki and her co-founders started 23andMe back in 2006 with a clear mission: to make genetic testing and its results, including findings about predisposition to disease, widely available to consumers. And, in exchange for a swab of spit and a fee, 23andMe provided its customers with unprecedented insight into their own genetic makeup. Now, Wojcicki and her company are at the forefront of a broader movement to expand personalized care and drug options in healthcare. In today's episode, Anne talks about the challenges in understanding the code of life, the benefits of DNA testing, concerns over privacy in the healthcare industry, and the future of medicine and new drug discovery. Anne Wojcicki is a biologist, entrepreneur, and the co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe, which provides genetic testing for individuals curious about their ancestry and genetic makeup.   In this episode, Hala and Anne will discuss: - Anne's disillusionment with the U.S. healthcare system - The power of the human genome - The challenges of direct-to-consumer DNA tests - The real reason 23andMe was so controversial - Handling FDA concerns - Challenges of achieving transparency and privacy - How people's lives have been changed by taking the 23andMe test - Integrating genetics into patient care - How large datasets are helping solve health mysteries - Building a direct-to-consumer healthcare movement - Combining genetics with drug discovery research - Expanding 23andMe's non-European databases - How AI will change the medical landscape - And other topics…   Anne Wojcicki is a biologist, entrepreneur, and the co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe. She has been on Forbes' list of the World's 100 Most Powerful Women and has been named “The Most Daring CEO” by Fast Company. Her company 23andMe provides genetic testing for individuals curious about their ancestry and genetic makeup, but it is doing a lot more than that, including helping to revolutionize how we think about drug discovery and the genetics of health.   Resources Mentioned: Anne's Website: https://blog.23andme.com/tag/anne-wojcicki Anne's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/annewojcicki/ Anne's Twitter: https://twitter.com/annewoj23?lang=en Anne's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/annewoj23/?hl=en Where you can order a 23andMe Health and Ancestry Kit: https://www.23andme.com/dna-health-ancestry/   LinkedIn Secrets Masterclass, Have Job Security For Life: Use code ‘podcast' for 30% off at yapmedia.io/course.    Sponsored By:  Shopify - Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at youngandprofiting.co/shopify Relay - Apply online and sign up for FREE! Go to relayfi.com/profiting Green Chef - Go to GreenChef.com/60yap and use code 60yap to get 60% off plus free shipping. Rocket Card - Go to rocketcard.com/profiting and get up to 5% cash back on every purchase toward a new loan   More About Young and Profiting Download Transcripts - youngandprofiting.com  Get Sponsorship Deals - youngandprofiting.com/sponsorships Leave a Review -  ratethispodcast.com/yap Watch Videos - youtube.com/c/YoungandProfiting   Follow Hala Taha LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/htaha/ Instagram - instagram.com/yapwithhala/ TikTok - tiktok.com/@yapwithhala Twitter - twitter.com/yapwithhala   Learn more about YAP Media Agency Services - yapmedia.io/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bryan Barrett talks with WGNS Weatherology Meterologist Jennifer Wojcicki about the severe weather possibilities this evening.

Wojcicki is a leading American educator, journalist and mother. Leader in Blending Learning and the integration of technology into education, she is the founder of the Media Arts Program at Palo Alto High School, where she built a journalism program from a small group of 20 students in 1984 to one of the largest in the nation including 600 students, five additional journalism teachers, and nine award-winning journalism publications. Wojcicki serves as Vice Chair of Creatice Commons and has previously worked as a professional journalist for multiple publications and blogs regularly for The Huffington Post.Esther has been intimately involved with Google and GoogleEdu since its inception, where she was one of the leaders in setting up the Google Teacher Academy and remains a guiding force. With two Honorary Doctorate Degrees - Palo Alto University (2013) and Rhode Island School of Design (2016). She was California Teacher of the Year in 2002 by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing; a recipient of the Gold Key by Columbia Scholastic Press Association in recognition of her outstanding devotion to the cause of the school press; a board member of Alliance for Excellent Education in Washington, DC and on the Board of Newseum in DC; and a has been consultant for the U.S Department of Education, Hewlett Foundation, Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, Google, Silicon Valley Education Foundation and Time Magazine Education.  Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/unimpressedpodcast. https://plus.acast.com/s/unimpressedpodcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:Meta released its latest quarterly adversarial threat report, outlining influence operations it took down that were linked to Russia, Serbia, Cuba, and Bolivia. - Ben Nimmo, Nathaniel Gleicher/ Meta, Renée DiResta/ @noUpside, Alex Stamos/ @alexstamosMore: Alex and Evelyn are among those warning that the Q4 2022 report might mark the last time Meta and Twitter collaborated on addressing influence operations and resisting government data requests. Twitter failed to release its own quarterly report on government requests for data and observed influence operations. - Adam Rawnsley/ Rolling StoneTikTok announced a research API, opening an application to academics at nonprofit universities. The application and API details have received criticism for restrictions that would fail to meet academic research standards or return limited data with potentially misleading findings. - Aisha Malik/ TechCrunch, Mia Sato/ The Verge, Joe Bak-Coleman/ Tech Policy Press, Emma Lurie, Dan Bateyko, Frances Schroeder/ Stanford Internet ObservatoryTwitter CornerTwitter delayed changes to API access again (and again), with plans now pushed to some point in “the next few weeks.” But don't worry, the delays and lack of information about the new deadline or pricing are just due to “an immense amount of enthusiasm for the upcoming changes with Twitter API.” - Ivan Mehta/ TechCrunch,  Lauren Leffer/ Gizmodo, Heidi Ledford/ Nature, Chris Stokel-Walker/ WiredElon Musk ordered changes to prioritize his tweets in all user timelines following the Super Bowl when the Twitter CEO's (since deleted) tweet had lower engagement than President Joe Biden's. - Casey Newton/ Platformer, Faiz Siddiqui, Jeremy Merrill/ The Washington PostFirst it was the Taliban. Now it's the Russians buying blue check marks which boost content and give a veneer of authority on Twitter. We're shocked! - Joseph Menn/ The Washington Post  Twitter will soon only provide SMS-based login authentication, or 2FA, for paid subscribers. While 2FA is the weakest form of multifactor authentication, it is also the most commonly used and significantly more secure than only using a password. - @ZoeSchiffer, Sean Hollister/ The Verge, Lily Hay Newman/ WiredMeta is introducing verification with a blue check mark displayed and higher visibility for posts. Déjà vu? - Emma Roth/ The VergeFacebook and Instagram are the first platforms to participate in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's “Take It Down” tool for people to submit non-consensual intimate photos or videos recorded of them when they were underage to be hashed and removed by participating platforms. - Antigone Davis/ Meta, Ginger Adams Otis/ The Wall Street Journal, Alexandra Levine/ ForbesThe European Commission and the EU's diplomatic service banned TikTok on staff devices and personal devices with work-related apps, citing security concerns. - Emily Rauhala, Beatriz Ríos/ The Washington Post, Monika Pronczuk/ The New York Times, Stuart Lau, Laurens Cerulus/ PoliticoCompanies including TikTok, Twitter, Meta, Pinterest, and Snapchat have confirmed they are VLOPs under the DSA and will need to comply with the strictest rules later this year. - Clothilde Goujard/ PoliticoSusan Wojcicki announced she's stepping down as YouTube CEO in a massive blow to Evelyn's “Wojcicki to the Hill” campaign. - Peter Kafka/ VoxA New York court blocked a state law requiring social media platforms to post policies on “hateful conduct.” - Eugene Volokh/ ReasonModerated Content Supreme Court correspondent (and director of Stanford's Program of Platform Regulation) Daphne Keller was in the courtroom for oral arguments in the Gonzalez and Taamneh cases. If you haven't already, tune in for those episodes:Tech Law SCOTUS Superbowl First Half: GonzalezTech Law SCOTUS Superbowl Second Half: TaamnehJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

Click to watch

In local news, a flag with a swastika was draped over the Temple of the High Country sign Wednesday night. According to the Watauga Democrat, Boone Police responded to a call at the Temple of a person waving flag with a swastika out front. Once officers arrived at the scene, they found a flag with a swastika draped over the Temple of the High Country sign but were unable to locate the person who was allegedly waving it. The incident is under investigation. In state news, The North Carolina senate voted to repeal the state's pistol permitting law on Thursday. According to WRAL, the law could allow North Carolinians to no longer need their local Sheriff's permission to buy a handgun. The bill will now go to the state House where Republicans have proposed a similar bill. Republicans cited the current law for Sheriff approval as “arbitrary.” Meanwhile, Democrats cited concerns that repealing the state's pistol rule will allow people with a history of domestic violence or serious mental health problems, to get a gun by avoiding a background check. In national news, Susan Wojcicki is stepping down as CEO of YouTube. According to the Associated Press, after nine years with the company, Wojcicki announced in a blog post Thursday that she was now going to spend time “focused on my family, health, and personal projects I'm passionate about.” In her place, Neal Mohan will become the new CEO. Wojcicki said that she would help with the transition process but in the long term she would take an advisory role across Google and Alphabet, which own YouTube. And now for a special weather report powered by Booneweather.com. Today has been another warm day with a high of 62 and a low of 45. Conditions have been mostly cloudy throughout the day. Rain is expected to develop tonight with some possible thunder so stay dry!

(2/12/2023-2/19/2023) I hope you "

On today's podcast: education thought leader and former journalism teacher Esther Wojcicki.Wojcicki led a renowned journalism program at Palo Alto High School in California for 27 years and is a highly sought speaker on education reform. She is also the board chair of Creative Commons, a nonprofit focused on education and learning, and is a co-founder of the Journalistic Learning Initiative.In this episode, we discuss her teaching career at Palo Alto and the power of project-based storytelling.Topics 03:36 Wojcicki's Palo Alto program 07:47 The TRICK method 10:03 Publishing student work 13:09 Taking the grandkids to Target 17:48 Giving teachers more control in the classroom

9 de noviembre de 2022Capítulo 34: Convierte en un ejemplo para tus hijosResumen:En el capítulo de hoy hablamos sobre como es ser padre y madre. Las dificultades que conllevan la paternidad y como, al tener metas, objetivos personales, etc. el paradigma puede llevarte a pensar que no estas presente en la vida de tus hijos porque no pasas cada segundo de tu día enfocado en ellos. Pero eso no es así, lo importante es que estas en los momentos justos, tus hijos te eligieron a ti y eso ya es lo más importante, ir creciendo junto a ellos y formar parte de las decisiones y elegir lo mejor para ellos. Además, es muy importante tener en claro de que si tu eres solo la “mitad de ti”, vas a dar la mitad de ti. Es importante entender que tu mejor versión va a ser mejor para tus hijos, por lo que el desarrollo personal va a ayudar también a tus hijos.Temática del capítulo: Introducción: 00.37Temática del día: 0.53Ser mamá y ser papá: 3.05La madre de Ana Ceci: 4.13Ser la mejor versión de tu mismo para ayudar a los otros: 5.40La historia de Esther Wojcicki: 7.00Principios para ayudar a tus hijos: 9.00Ellos te eligieron: 10.50Fe para resolver los problemas: 13.00Ser sociable que necesita compartir: 16.50Estar involucrado con tus hijos para crecer: 18.00Partes del desarrollo personal: 19.40El dinero y lo material no lo es todo: 22.00Abundancia: 25.00Cierre: 27.00Si deseas descubrir exactamente cómo TU puedes sacar tu potencial y crear nuevos resultados, únete a nuestra comunidad:Facebook: Los Imparables Empresarios y Agentes de Seguros - Marc Jospitre | FacebookInstagram: Marc Jospitre (@losimparables_marcjospitre) • Fotos y videos de InstagramMail: info@marcjospitre.comSitio web: Marc Jospitre ConsultingLinks adicionales: Amazon.com: How To Raise Successful People: Simple Lessons for Radical Results: 9781328974860: Wojcicki, Esther: LibrosForo GO-GO BEYOND (foro-go.com)

Steve Hsu is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Michigan State University and cofounder of the company Genomic Prediction.We go deep into the weeds on how embryo selection can make babies healthier and smarter. Steve also explains the advice Richard Feynman gave him to pick up girls, the genetics of aging and intelligence, & the psychometric differences between shape rotators and wordcels.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Read the full transcript here.Follow Steve on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:14) - Feynman’s advice on picking up women(0:11:46) - Embryo selection(0:24:19) - Why hasn't natural selection already optimized humans?(0:34:13) - Aging(0:43:18) - First Mover Advantage(0:53:49) - Genomics in dating(1:00:31) - Ancestral populations(1:07:58) - Is this eugenics?(1:15:59) - Tradeoffs to intelligence(1:25:01) - Consumer preferences(1:30:14) - Gwern(1:34:35) - Will parents matter?(1:45:25) - Word cells and shape rotators(1:57:29) - Bezos and brilliant physicists(2:10:23) - Elite educationTranscriptDwarkesh Patel  0:00  Today I have the pleasure of speaking with Steve Hsu. Steve, thanks for coming on the podcast. I'm excited about this.Steve Hsu  0:04  Hey, it's my pleasure! I'm excited too and I just want to say I've listened to some of your earlier interviews and thought you were very insightful, which is why I was excited to have a conversation with you.Dwarkesh Patel 0:14That means a lot for me to hear you say because I'm a big fan of your podcast.Feynman’s advice on picking up womenDwarkesh Patel  0:17  So my first question is: “What advice did Richard Feynman give you about picking up girls?”Steve Hsu  0:24   Haha, wow! So one day in the spring of my senior year, I was walking across campus and saw Feynman coming toward me. We knew each other from various things—it's a small campus, I was a physics major and he was my hero–– so I'd known him since my first year. He sees me, and he's got this Long Island or New York borough accent and says, "Hey, Hsu!"  I'm like, "Hi, Professor Feynman." We start talking. And he says to me, "Wow, you're a big guy." Of course, I was much bigger back then because I was a linebacker on the Caltech football team. So I was about 200 pounds and slightly over 6 feet tall. I was a gym rat at the time and I was much bigger than him. He said, "Steve, I got to ask you something." Feynman was born in 1918, so he's not from the modern era. He was going through graduate school when the Second World War started. So, he couldn't understand the concept of a health club or a gym. This was the 80s and was when Gold's Gym was becoming a world national franchise. There were gyms all over the place like 24-Hour Fitness. But, Feynman didn't know what it was. He's a fascinating guy. He says to me, "What do you guys do there? Is it just a thing to meet girls? Or is it really for training? Do you guys go there to get buff?" So, I started explaining to him that people are there to get big, but people are also checking out the girls. A lot of stuff is happening at the health club or the weight room. Feynman grills me on this for a long time. And one of the famous things about Feynman is that he has a laser focus. So if there's something he doesn't understand and wants to get to the bottom of it, he will focus on you and start questioning you and get to the bottom of it. That's the way his brain worked. So he did that to me for a while because he didn't understand lifting weights and everything. In the end, he says to me, "Wow, Steve, I appreciate that. Let me give you some good advice."Then, he starts telling me how to pick up girls—which he's an expert on. He says to me, "I don't know how much girls like guys that are as big as you." He thought it might be a turn-off. "But you know what, you have a nice smile." So that was the one compliment he gave me. Then, he starts to tell me that it's a numbers game. You have to be rational about it. You're at an airport lounge, or you're at a bar. It's Saturday night in Pasadena or Westwood, and you're talking to some girl. He says, "You're never going to see her again. This is your five-minute interaction. Do what you have to do. If she doesn't like you, go to the next one." He also shares some colorful details. But, the point is that you should not care what they think of you. You're trying to do your thing. He did have a reputation at Caltech as a womanizer, and I could go into that too but I heard all this from the secretaries.Dwarkesh Patel  4:30  With the students or only the secretaries? Steve Hsu  4:35  Secretaries! Well mostly secretaries. They were almost all female at that time. He had thought about this a lot, and thought of it as a numbers game. The PUA guys (pick-up artists) will say, “Follow the algorithm, and whatever happens, it's not a reflection on your self-esteem. It's just what happened. And you go on to the next one.” That was the advice he was giving me, and he said other things that were pretty standard: Be funny, be confident—just basic stuff. Steve Hu: But the main thing I remember was the operationalization of it as an algorithm. You shouldn’t internalize whatever happens if you get rejected, because that hurts. When we had to go across the bar to talk to that girl (maybe it doesn’t happen in your generation), it was terrifying. We had to go across the bar and talk to some lady! It’s loud and you’ve got a few minutes to make your case. Nothing is scarier than walking up to the girl and her friends. Feynman was telling me to train yourself out of that. You're never going to see them again, the face space of humanity is so big that you'll probably never re-encounter them again. It doesn't matter. So, do your best. Dwarkesh Patel  6:06  Yeah, that's interesting because.. I wonder whether he was doing this in the 40’–– like when he was at that age, was he doing this? I don't know what the cultural conventions were at the time. Were there bars in the 40s where you could just go ahead and hit on girls or? Steve Hsu  6:19  Oh yeah absolutely. If you read literature from that time, or even a little bit earlier like Hemingway or John O'Hara, they talk about how men and women interacted in bars and stuff in New York City. So, that was much more of a thing back than when compared to your generation. That's what I can’t figure out with my kids! What is going on? How do boys and girls meet these days? Back in the day, the guy had to do all the work. It was the most terrifying thing you could do, and you had  to train yourself out of that.Dwarkesh Patel  6:57  By the way, for the context for the audience, when Feynman says you were a big guy, you were a football player at Caltech, right? There's a picture of you on your website, maybe after college or something, but you look pretty ripped. Today, it seems more common because of the gym culture. But I don’t know about back then. I don't know how common that body physique was.Steve Hsu  7:24  It’s amazing that you asked this question. I'll tell you a funny story. One of the reasons Feynman found this so weird was because of the way body-building entered the United States.  They  were regarded as freaks and homosexuals at first. I remember swimming and football in high school (swimming is different because it's international) and in swimming, I picked up a lot of advanced training techniques from the Russians and East Germans. But football was more American and not very international. So our football coach used to tell us not to lift weights when we were in junior high school because it made you slow. “You’re no good if you’re bulky.” “You gotta be fast in football.” Then, something changed around the time I was in high school–the coaches figured it out. I began lifting weights since I was an age group swimmer, like maybe age 12 or 14. Then, the football coaches got into it mainly because the University of Nebraska had a famous strength program that popularized it.At the time, there just weren't a lot of big guys. The people who knew how to train were using what would be considered “advanced knowledge” back in the 80s. For example, they’d know how to do a split routine or squat on one day and do upper body on the next day–– that was considered advanced knowledge at that time. I remember once.. I had an injury, and I was in the trainer's room at the Caltech athletic facility. The lady was looking at my quadriceps. I’d pulled a muscle, and she was looking at the quadriceps right above your kneecap. If you have well-developed quads, you'd have a bulge, a bump right above your cap. And she was looking at it from this angle where she was in front of me, and she was looking at my leg from the front. She's like, “Wow, it's swollen.” And I was like, “That's not the injury. That's my quadricep!” And she was a trainer! So, at that time, I could probably squat 400 pounds. So I was pretty strong and had big legs. The fact that the trainer didn't really understand what well-developed anatomy was supposed to look like blew my mind!So anyway, we've come a long way. This isn't one of these things where you have to be old to have any understanding of how this stuff evolved over the last 30-40 years.Dwarkesh Patel  10:13  But, I wonder if that was a phenomenon of that particular time or if people were not that muscular throughout human history. You hear stories of  Roman soldiers who are carrying 80 pounds for 10 or 20 miles a day. I mean, there's a lot of sculptures in the ancient world, or not that ancient, but the people look like they have a well-developed musculature.Steve Hsu  10:34  So the Greeks were very special because they were the first to think about the word gymnasium. It was a thing called the Palaestra, where they were trained in wrestling and boxing. They were the first people who were seriously into physical culture specific training for athletic competition.Even in the 70s, when I was a little kid, I look back at the guys from old photos and they were skinny. So skinny! The guys who went off and fought World War Two, whether they were on the German side, or the American side, were like 5’8-5’9 weighing around 130 pounds - 140 pounds. They were much different from what modern US Marines would look like. So yeah, physical culture was a new thing. Of course, the Romans and the Greeks had it to some degree, but it was lost for a long time. And, it was just coming back to the US when I was growing up. So if you were reasonably lean (around 200 pounds) and you could bench over 300.. that was pretty rare back in those days.Embryo selectionDwarkesh Patel  11:46  Okay, so let's talk about your company Genomic Prediction. Do you want to talk about this company and give an intro about what it is?Steve Hsu  11:55  Yeah. So there are two ways to introduce it. One is the scientific view. The other is the IVF view. I can do a little of both. So scientifically, the issue is that we have more and more genomic data. If you give me the genomes of a bunch of people and then give me some information about each person, ex. Do they have diabetes? How tall are they? What's their IQ score?  It’s a natural AI machine learning problem to figure out which features in the DNA variation between people are predictive of whatever variable you're trying to predict.This is the ancient scientific question of how you relate the genotype of the organism (the specific DNA pattern), to the phenotype (the expressed characteristics of the organism). If you think about it, this is what biology is! We had the molecular revolution and figured out that it’s people's DNA that stores the information which is passed along. Evolution selects on the basis of the variation in the DNA that’s expressed as phenotype, as that phenotype affects fitness/reproductive success. That's the whole ballgame for biology. As a physicist who's trained in mathematics and computation, I'm lucky that I arrived on the scene at a time when we're going to solve this basic fundamental problem of biology through brute force, AI, and machine learning. So that's how I got into this. Now you ask as an entrepreneur, “Okay, fine Steve, you're doing this in your office with your postdocs and collaborators on your computers. What use is it?” The most direct application of this is in the following setting: Every year around the world, millions of families go through IVF—typically because they're having some fertility issues, and also mainly because the mother is in her 30s or maybe 40s. In the process of IVF, they use hormone stimulation to produce more eggs. Instead of one per cycle, depending on the age of the woman, they might produce anywhere between five to twenty, or even sixty to a hundred eggs for young women who are hormonally stimulated (egg donors).From there, it’s trivial because men produce sperm all the time. You can fertilize eggs pretty easily in a little dish, and get a bunch of embryos that grow. They start growing once they're fertilized. The problem is that if you're a family and produce more embryos than you’re going to use, you have the embryo choice problem. You have to figure out which embryo to choose out of  say, 20 viable embryos. The most direct application of the science that I described is that we can now genotype those embryos from a small biopsy. I can tell you things about the embryos. I could tell you things like your fourth embryo being an outlier. For breast cancer risk, I would think carefully about using number four. Number ten is an outlier for cardiovascular disease risk. You might want to think about not using that one. The other ones are okay. So, that’s what genomic prediction does. We work with 200 or 300 different IVF clinics in six continents.Dwarkesh Patel  15:46  Yeah, so the super fascinating thing about this is that the diseases you talked about—or at least their risk profiles—are polygenic. You can have thousands of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) determining whether you will get a disease. So, I'm curious to learn how you were able to transition to this space and how your knowledge of mathematics and physics was able to help you figure out how to make sense of all this data.Steve Hsu  16:16  Yeah, that's a great question. So again, I was stressing the fundamental scientific importance of all this stuff. If you go into a slightly higher level of detail—which you were getting at with the individual SNPs, or polymorphisms—there are individual locations in the genome, where I might differ from you, and you might differ from another person. Typically, each pair of individuals will differ at a few million places in the genome—and that controls why I look a little different than youA lot of times, theoretical physicists have a little spare energy and they get tired of thinking about quarks or something. They want to maybe dabble in biology, or they want to dabble in computer science, or some other field. As theoretical physicists, we always feel, “Oh, I have a lot of horsepower, I can figure a lot out.” (For example, Feynman helped design the first parallel processors for thinking machines.) I have to figure out which problems I can make an impact on because I can waste a lot of time. Some people spend their whole lives studying one problem, one molecule or something, or one biological system. I don't have time for that, I'm just going to jump in and jump out. I'm a physicist. That's a typical attitude among theoretical physicists. So, I had to confront sequencing costs about ten years ago because I knew the rate at which they were going down. I could anticipate that we’d get to the day (today) when millions of genomes with good phenotype data became available for analysis. A typical training run might involve almost a million genomes, or half a million genomes. The mathematical question then was: What is the most effective algorithm given a set of genomes and phenotype information to build the best predictor?  This can be  boiled down to a very well-defined machine learning problem. It turns out, for some subset of algorithms, there are theorems— performance guarantees that give you a bound on how much data you need to capture almost all of the variation in the features. I spent a fair amount of time, probably a year or two, studying these very famous results, some of which were proved by a guy named Terence Tao, a Fields medalist. These are results on something called compressed sensing: a penalized form of high dimensional regression that tries to build sparse predictors. Machine learning people might notice L1-penalized optimization. The very first paper we wrote on this was to prove that using accurate genomic data and these very abstract theorems in combination could predict how much data you need to “solve” individual human traits. We showed that you would need at least a few hundred thousand individuals and their genomes and their heights to solve for height as a phenotype. We proved that in a paper using all this fancy math in 2012. Then around 2017, when we got a hold of half a million genomes, we were able to implement it in practical terms and show that our mathematical result from some years ago was correct. The transition from the low performance of the predictor to high performance (which is what we call a “phase transition boundary” between those two domains) occurred just where we said it was going to occur. Some of these technical details are not understood even by practitioners in computational genomics who are not quite mathematical. They don't understand these results in our earlier papers and don't know why we can do stuff that other people can't, or why we can predict how much data we'll need to do stuff. It's not well-appreciated, even in the field. But when the big AI in our future in the singularity looks back and says, “Hey, who gets the most credit for this genomics revolution that happened in the early 21st century?”, they're going to find these papers on the archive where we proved this was possible, and how five years later, we actually did it. Right now it's under-appreciated, but the future AI––that Roko's Basilisk AI–will look back and will give me a little credit for it. Dwarkesh Patel  21:03  Yeah, I was a little interested in this a few years ago. At that time, I looked into how these polygenic risk scores were calculated. Basically, you find the correlation between the phenotype and the alleles that correlate with it. You add up how many copies of these alleles you have, what the correlations are, and you do a weighted sum of that. So that seemed very simple, especially in an era where we have all this machine learning, but it seems like they're getting good predictive results out of this concept. So, what is the delta between how good you can go with all this fancy mathematics versus a simple sum of correlations?Steve Hsu  21:43  You're right that the ultimate models that are used when you've done all the training, and when the dust settles, are straightforward. They’re pretty simple and have an additive structure. Basically, I either assign a nonzero weight to this particular region in the genome, or I don't. Then, I need to know what the weighting is, but then the function is a linear function or additive function of the state of your genome at some subset of positions. The ultimate model that you get is straightforward. Now, if you go back ten years, when we were doing this, there were lots of claims that it was going to be super nonlinear—that it wasn't going to be additive the way I just described it. There were going to be lots of interaction terms between regions. Some biologists are still convinced that's true, even though we already know we have predictors that don't have interactions.The other question, which is more technical, is whether in any small region of your genome, the state of the individual variants is highly correlated because you inherit them in chunks. You need to figure out which one you want to use. You don't want to activate all of them because you might be overcounting. So that's where these L-1 penalization sparse methods force the predictor to be sparse. That is a key step. Otherwise, you might overcount. If you do some simple regression math, you might have 10-10 different variants close by that have roughly the same statistical significance.But, you don't know which one of those tends to be used, and you might be overcounting effects or undercounting effects. So, you end up doing a high-dimensional optimization, where you grudgingly activate a SNP when the signal is strong enough. Once you activate that one, the algorithm has to be smart enough to penalize the other ones nearby and not activate them because you're over counting effects if you do that. There's a little bit of subtlety in it. But, the main point you made is that the ultimate predictors, which are very simple and addictive—sum over effect sizes and time states—work well. That’s related to a deep statement about the additive structure of the genetic architecture of individual differences. In other words, it's weird that the ways that I differ from you are merely just because I have more of something or you have less of something. It’s not like these things are interacting in some incredibly understandable way. That's a deep thing—which is not appreciated that much by biologists yet. But over time, they'll figure out something interesting here.Why hasn’t natural selection already optimized humans?Dwarkesh Patel  24:19  Right. I thought that was super fascinating, and I commented on that on Twitter. What is interesting about that is two things. One is that you have this fascinating evolutionary argument about why that would be the case that you might want to explain. The second is that it makes you wonder if becoming more intelligent is just a matter of turning on certain SNPs. It's not a matter of all this incredible optimization being like solving a sudoku puzzle or anything. If that's the case, then why hasn't the human population already been selected to be maxed out on all these traits if it's just a matter of a bit flip?Steve Hsu  25:00  Okay, so the first issue is why is this genetic architecture so surprisingly simple? Again, we didn't know it would be simple ten years ago. So when I was checking to see whether this was a field that I should go into depending on our capabilities to make progress, we had to study the more general problem of the nonlinear possibilities. But eventually, we realized that most of the variance would probably be captured in an additive way. So, we could narrow down the problem quite a bit. There are evolutionary reasons for this. There’s a famous theorem by Fisher, the father of population genetics (aka. frequentist statistics). Fisher proved something called Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection, which says that if you impose some selection pressure on a population, the rate at which that population responds to the selection pressure (lets say it’s the bigger rats that out-compete the smaller rats) then at what rate does the rat population start getting bigger? He showed that it's the additive variants that dominate the rate of evolution. It's easy to understand why if it's a nonlinear mechanism, you need to make the rat bigger. When you sexually reproduce, and that gets chopped apart, you might break the mechanism. Whereas, if each short allele has its own independent effect, you can inherit them without worrying about breaking the mechanisms. It was well known among a tiny theoretical population of biologists that adding variants was the dominant way that populations would respond to selection. That was already known. The other thing is that humans have been through a pretty tight bottleneck, and we're not that different from each other. It's very plausible that if I wanted to edit a human embryo, and make it into a frog, then there are all kinds of subtle nonlinear things I’d have to do. But all those identical nonlinear complicated subsystems are fixed in humans. You have the same system as I do. You have the not human, not frog or ape, version of that region of DNA, and so do I. But the small ways we differ are mostly little additive switches. That's this deep scientific discovery from over the last 5-10 years of work in this area. Now, you were asking about why evolution hasn't completely “optimized” all traits in humans already. I don't know if you’ve ever done deep learning or high-dimensional optimization, but in that high-dimensional space, you're often moving on a slightly-tilted surface. So, you're getting gains, but it's also flat. Even though you scale up your compute or data size by order of magnitude, you don't move that much farther. You get some gains, but you're never really at the global max of anything in these high dimensional spaces. I don't know if that makes sense to you. But it's pretty plausible to me that two things are important here. One is that evolution has not had that much time to optimize humans. The environment that humans live in changed radically in the last 10,000 years. For a while, we didn't have agriculture, and now we have agriculture. Now, we have a swipe left if you want to have sex tonight. The environment didn't stay fixed. So, when you say fully optimized for the environment, what do you mean? The ability to diagonalize matrices might not have been very adaptive 10,000 years ago. It might not even be adaptive now. But anyway, it's a complicated question that one can't reason naively about. “If God wanted us to be 10 feet tall, we'd be 10 feet tall.” Or “if it's better to be smart, my brain would be *this* big or something.” You can't reason naively about stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel  29:04  I see. Yeah.. Okay. So I guess it would make sense then that for example, with certain health risks, the thing that makes you more likely to get diabetes or heart disease today might be… I don't know what the pleiotropic effect of that could be. But maybe that's not that important one year from now.Steve Hsu  29:17  Let me point out that most of the diseases we care about now—not the rare ones, but the common ones—manifest when you're 50-60 years old. So there was never any evolutionary advantage of being super long-lived. There's even a debate about whether the grandparents being around to help raise the kids lifts the fitness of the family unit.But, most of the time in our evolutionary past, humans just died fairly early. So, many of these diseases would never have been optimized against evolution. But, we see them now because we live under such good conditions, we can regulate people over 80 or 90 years.Dwarkesh Patel  29:57  Regarding the linearity and additivity point, I was going to make the analogy that– and I'm curious if this is valid– but when you're programming, one thing that's good practice is to have all the implementation details in separate function calls or separate programs or something, and then have your main loop of operation just be called different functions like, “Do this, do that”, so that you can easily comment stuff away or change arguments. This seemed very similar to that where by turning these names on and off, you can change what the next offering will be. And, you don't have to worry about actually implementing whatever the underlying mechanism is. Steve Hsu  30:41  Well, what you said is related to what Fisher proved in his theorems. Which is that, if suddenly, it becomes advantageous to have X, (like white fur instead of black fur) or something, it would be best if there were little levers that you could move somebody from black fur to white fur continuously by modifying those switches in an additive way. It turns out that for sexually reproducing species where the DNA gets scrambled up in every generation, it's better to have switches of that kind. The other point related to your software analogy is that there seem to be modular, fairly modular things going on in the genome. When we looked at it, we were the first group to have, initially, 20 primary disease conditions we had decent predictors for. We started looking carefully at just something as trivial as the overlap of my sparsely trained predictor. It turns on and uses *these* features for diabetes, but it uses *these* features for schizophrenia. It’s the stupidest metric, it’s literally just how much overlap or variance accounted for overlap is there between pairs of disease conditions. It's very modest. It's the opposite of what naive biologists would say when they talk about pleiotropy.They're just disjoint! Disjoint regions of your genome that govern certain things. And why not? You have 3 billion base pairs—there's a lot you can do in there. There's a lot of information there. If you need 1000 to control diabetes risk, I estimated you could easily have 1000 roughly independent traits that are just disjoint in their genetic dependencies. So, if you think about D&D,  your strength, decks, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma—those are all disjoint. They're all just independent variables. So it's like a seven-dimensional space that your character lives in. Well, there's enough information in the few million differences between you and me. There's enough for 1000-dimensional space of variation.“Oh, how considerable is your spleen?” My spleen is a little bit smaller, yours is a little bit bigger - that can vary independently of your IQ. Oh, it's a big surprise. The size of your spleen can vary independently of the size of your big toe. If you do information theory, there are about 1000 different parameters, and I can vary independently with the number of variants I have between you and me. Because you understand some information theory, it’s trivial to explain, but try explaining to a biologist, you won't get very far.Dwarkesh Patel  33:27  Yeah, yeah, do the log two of the number of.. is that basically how you do it? Yeah.Steve Hsu  33:33  Okay. That's all it is. I mean, it's in our paper. We look at how many variants typically account for most of the variation for any of these major traits, and then imagine that they're mostly disjoint. Then it’s just all about: how many variants you need to independently vary 1000 traits? Well, a few million differences between you and me are enough. It's very trivial math. Once you understand the base and how to reason about information theory, then it's very trivial. But, it ain’t trivial for theoretical biologists, as far as I can tell.AgingDwarkesh Patel  34:13  But the result is so interesting because I remember reading in The Selfish Gene that, as he (Dawkins) hypothesizes that the reason we could be aging is an antagonistic clash. There's something that makes you healthier when you're young and fertile that makes you unhealthy when you're old. Evolution would have selected for such a trade-off because when you're young and fertile, evolution and your genes care about you. But, if there's enough space in the genome —where these trade-offs are not necessarily necessary—then this could be a bad explanation for aging, or do you think I'm straining the analogy?Steve Hsu  34:49  I love your interviews because the point you're making here is really good. So Dawkins, who is an evolutionary theorist from the old school when they had almost no data—you can imagine how much data they had compared to today—he would tell you a story about a particular gene that maybe has a positive effect when you're young, but it makes you age faster. So, there's a trade-off. We know about things like sickle cell anemia. We know stories about that. No doubt, some stories are true about specific variants in your genome. But that's not the general story. The general story you only discovered in the last five years is that thousands of variants control almost every trait and those variants tend to be disjoint from the ones that control the other trait. They weren't wrong, but they didn't have the big picture.Dwarkesh Patel  35:44  Yeah, I see. So, you had this paper, it had polygenic, health index, general health, and disease risk.. You showed that with ten embryos, you could increase disability-adjusted life years by four, which is a massive increase if you think about it. Like what if you could live four years longer and in a healthy state? Steve Hsu  36:05  Yeah, what's the value of that? What would you pay to buy that for your kid?Dwarkesh Patel  36:08  Yeah. But, going back to the earlier question about the trade-offs and why this hasn't already been selected for,  if you're right and there's no trade-off to do this, just living four years older (even if that's beyond your fertility) just being a grandpa or something seems like an unmitigated good. So why hasn’t this kind of assurance hasn't already been selected for? Steve Hsu  36:35  I’m glad you're asking about these questions because these are things that people are very confused about, even in the field. First of all, let me say that when you have a trait that's controlled by  10,000 variants (eg. height is controlled by order 10,000 variants and probably cognitive ability a little bit more), the square root of 10,000 is 100.  So, if I could come to this little embryo, and I want to give it one extra standard deviation of height, I only need to edit 100. I only need to flip 100 minus variance to plus variance. These are very rough numbers. But, one standard deviation is the square root of “n”. If I flip a coin “n” times, I want a better outcome in terms of the number of ratio heads to tails. I want to increase it by one standard deviation. I only need to flip the square root of “n” heads because if you flip a lot, you will get a narrow distribution that peaks around half, and the width of that distribution is the square root of “n”. Once I tell you, “Hey, your height is controlled by 10,000 variants, and I only need to flip 100 genetic variants to make you one standard deviation for a male,” (that would be three inches tall, two and a half or three inches taller), you suddenly realize, “Wait a minute, there are a lot of variants up for grabs there. If I could flip 500 variants in your genome, I would make you five standard deviations taller, you'd be seven feet tall.”  I didn't even have to do that much work, and there's a lot more variation where that came from. I could have flipped even more because I only flipped 500 out of 10,000, right? So, there's this  quasi-infinite well of variation that evolution or genetic engineers could act on. Again, the early population geneticists who bred corn and animals know this. This is something they explicitly know about because they've done calculations. Interestingly, the human geneticists who are mainly concerned with diseases and stuff, are often unfamiliar with the math that the animal breeders already know. You might be interested to know that the milk you drink comes from heavily genetically-optimized cows bred artificially using almost exactly the same technologies that we use at genomic prediction. But, they're doing it to optimize milk production and stuff like this. So there is a big well of variance. It's a consequence of the trait's poly genicity. On the longevity side of things, it does look like people could “be engineered” to live much longer by flipping the variants that make the risk for diseases that shorten your life. The question is then “Why didn't evolution give us life spans of thousands of years?” People in the Bible used to live for thousands of years. Why don't we? I mean, *chuckles* that probably didn’t happen. But the question is, you have this very high dimensional space, and you have a fitness function. How big is the slope in a particular direction of that fitness function? How much more successful reproductively would Joe caveman have been if he lived to be 150 instead of only, 100 or something? There just hasn't been enough time to explore this super high dimensional space. That's the actual answer. But now, we have the technology, and we're going to f*****g explore it fast. That's the point that the big lightbulb should go off. We’re mapping this space out now. Pretty confident in 10 years or so, with the CRISPR gene editing technologies will be ready for massively multiplexed edits. We'll start navigating in this high-dimensional space as much as we like. So that's the more long-term consequence of the scientific insights.Dwarkesh Patel  40:53  Yeah, that's super interesting. What do you think will be the plateau for a trait of how long you’ll live? With the current data and techniques, you think it could be significantly greater than that?Steve Hsu  41:05  We did a simple calculation—which amazingly gives the correct result. This polygenic predictor that we built (which isn't perfect yet but will improve as we gather more data) is used in selecting embryos today. If you asked, out of a billion people, “What's the best person typically, what would their score be on this index and then how long would they be predicted to live?”’ It's about 120 years. So it's spot on. One in a billion types of person lives to be 120 years old. How much better can you do? Probably a lot better. I don't want to speculate, but other nonlinear effects, things that we're not taking into account will start to play a role at some point. So, it's a little bit hard to estimate what the true limiting factors will be. But one super robust statement, and I'll stand by it, debate any Nobel Laureate in biology who wants to discuss it even,  is that there are many variants available to be selected or edited. There's no question about that. That's been established in animal breeding in plant breeding for a long time now. If you want a chicken that grows to be *this* big, instead of *this* big, you can do it. You can do it if you want a cow that produces 10 times or 100 times more milk than a regular cow. The egg you ate for breakfast this morning, those bio-engineered chickens that lay almost an egg a day… A chicken in the wild lays an egg a month. How the hell did we do that? By genetic engineering. That's how we did it. Dwarkesh Patel  42:51  Yeah. That was through brute artificial selection. No fancy machine learning there.Steve Hsu  42:58  Last ten years, it's gotten sophisticated machine learning genotyping of chickens. Artificial insemination, modeling of the traits using ML last ten years. For cow breeding, it's done by ML. First Mover AdvantageDwarkesh Patel  43:18  I had no idea. That's super interesting. So, you mentioned that you're accumulating data and improving your techniques over time, is there a first mover advantage to a genomic prediction company like this? Or is it whoever has the newest best algorithm for going through the biobank data? Steve Hsu  44:16  That's another super question. For the entrepreneurs in your audience, I would say in the short run, if you ask what the valuation of GPB should be? That's how the venture guys would want me to answer the question. There is a huge first mover advantage because they're important in the channel relationships between us and the clinics. Nobody will be able to get in there very easily when they come later because we're developing trust and an extensive track record with clinics worldwide—and we're well-known. So could 23andme or some company with a huge amount of data—if they were to get better AI/ML people working on this—blow us away a little bit and build better predictors because they have much more data than we do? Possibly, yes. Now, we have had core expertise in doing this work for years that we're just good at it. Even though we don't have as much data as 23andme, our predictors might still be better than theirs. I'm out there all the time, working with biobanks all around the world. I don't want to say all the names, but other countries are trying to get my hands on as much data as possible.But, there may not be a lasting advantage beyond the actual business channel connections to that particular market. It may not be a defensible, purely scientific moat around the company. We have patents on specific technologies about how to do the genotyping or error correction on the embryo, DNA, and stuff like this. We do have patents on stuff like that. But this general idea of who will best predict human traits from DNA? It's unclear who's going to be the winner in that race. Maybe it'll be the Chinese government in 50 years? Who knows?Dwarkesh Patel  46:13  Yeah, that's interesting. If you think about a company Google, theoretically, it's possible that you could come up with a better algorithm than PageRank and beat them. But it seems like the engineer at Google is going to come up with whatever edge case or whatever improvement is possible.Steve Hsu  46:28  That's exactly what I would say. PageRank is deprecated by now. But, even if somebody else comes up with a somewhat better algorithm if they have a little bit more data, if you have a team doing this for a long time and you're focused and good, it's still tough to beat you, especially if you have a lead in the market.Dwarkesh Patel  46:50  So, are you guys doing the actual biopsy? Or is it just that they upload the genome, and you're the one processing just giving recommendations? Is it an API call, basically?Steve Hsu  47:03  It's great, I love your question. It is totally standard. Every good IVF clinic in the world regularly takes embryo biopsies. So that's standard. There’s a lab tech doing that. Okay. Then, they take the little sample, put it on ice, and ship it. The DNA as a molecule is exceptionally robust and stable. My other startup solves crimes that are 100 years old from DNA that we get from some semen stain on some rape victim, serial killer victims bra strap, we've done stuff that.Dwarkesh Patel  47:41  Jack the Ripper, when are we going to solve that mystery?Steve Hsu  47:44  If they can give me samples, we can get into that. For example, we just learned that you could recover DNA pretty well if someone licks a stamp and puts on their correspondence. If you can do Neanderthals, you can do a lot to solve crimes. In the IVF workflow, our lab, which is in New Jersey, can service every clinic in the world because they take the biopsy, put it in a standard shipping container, and send it to us. We’re actually genotyping DNA in our lab, but we've trained a few of the bigger  clinics to do the genotyping on their site. At that point, they upload some data into the cloud and then they get back some stuff from our platform. And at that point it's going to be the whole world, every human who wants their kid to be healthy and get the best they can– that data is going to come up to us, and the report is going to come back down to their IVF physician. Dwarkesh Patel  48:46  Which is great if you think that there's a potential that this technology might get regulated in some way, you could go to Mexico or something, have them upload the genome (you don't care what they upload it from), and then get the recommendations there. Steve Hsu  49:05  I think we’re going to evolve to a point where we are going to be out of the wet part of this business, and only in the cloud and bit part of this business. No matter where it is, the clinics are going to have a sequencer, which is *this* big, and their tech is going to quickly upload and retrieve the report for the physician three seconds later. Then, the parents are going to look at it on their phones or whatever. We’re basically there with some clinics. It’s going to be tough to regulate because it’s just this. You have the bits and you’re in some repressive, terrible country that doesn’t allow you to select for some special traits that people are nervous about, but you can upload it to some vendor that’s in Singapore or some free country, and they give you the report back. Doesn’t have to be us, we don’t do the edgy stuff. We only do the health-related stuff right now. But, if you want to know how tall this embryo is going to be…I’ll tell you a mind-blower! When you do face recognition in AI, you're mapping someone's face into a parameter space on the order of hundreds of parameters, each of those parameters is super heritable. In other words, if I take two twins and photograph them, and the algorithm gives me the value of that parameter for twin one and two, they're very close. That's why I can't tell the two twins apart, and face recognition can ultimately tell them apart if it’s really good system. But you can conclude that almost all these parameters are identical for those twins. So it's highly heritable. We're going to get to a point soon where I can do the inverse problem where I have your DNA  and I predict each of those parameters in the face recognition algorithm and then reconstruct the face. If I say that when this embryo will be 16, that is what she will look like. When she's 32, this is what she's going to look like. I'll be able to do that, for sure. It's only an AI/ML problem right now. But basic biology is clearly going to work. So then you're going to be able to say, “Here's a report. Embryo four is so cute.” Before, we didn't know we wouldn't do that, but it will be possible. Dwarkesh Patel  51:37  Before we get married, you'll want to see what their genotype implies about their faces' longevity. It's interesting that you hear stories about these cartel leaders who will get plastic surgery or something to evade the law, you could have a check where you look at a lab and see if it matches the face you would have had five years ago when they caught you on tape.Steve Hsu  52:02  This is a little bit back to old-school Gattaca, but you don't even need the face! You can just take a few molecules of skin cells and phenotype them and know exactly who they are. I've had conversations with these spooky Intel folks. They're very interested in, “Oh, if some Russian diplomat comes in, and we think he's a spy, but he's with the embassy, and he has a coffee with me, and I save the cup and send it to my buddy at Langley, can we figure out who this guy is? And that he has a daughter who's going to Chote? Can do all that now.Dwarkesh Patel  52:49  If that's true, then in the future, world leaders will not want to eat anything or drink. They'll be wearing a hazmat suit to make sure they don't lose a hair follicle.Steve Hsu  53:04  The next time Pelosi goes, she will be in a spacesuit if she cares. Or the other thing is, they're going to give it. They're just going to be, “Yeah, my DNA is everywhere. If I'm a public figure, I can't track my DNA. It's all over.”Dwarkesh Patel  53:17  But the thing is, there's so much speculation that Putin might have cancer or something. If we have his DNA, we can see his probability of having cancer at age 70, or whatever he is, is 85%. So yeah, that’d be a very verified rumor. That would be interesting. Steve Hsu  53:33  I don't think that would be very definitive. I don't think we'll reach that point where you can say that Putin has cancer because of his DNA—which I could have known when he was an embryo. I don't think it's going to reach that level. But, we could say he is at high risk for a type of cancer. Genomics in datingDwarkesh Patel  53:49  In 50 or 100 years, if the majority of the population is doing this, and if the highly heritable diseases get pruned out of the population, does that mean we'll only be left with lifestyle diseases? So, you won't get breast cancer anymore, but you will still get fat or lung cancer from smoking?Steve Hsu  54:18  It's hard to discuss the asymptotic limit of what will happen here. I'm not very confident about making predictions like that. It could get to the point where everybody who's rich or has been through this stuff for a while, (especially if we get the editing working) is super low risk for all the top 20 killer diseases that have the most life expectancy impact. Maybe those people live to be 300 years old naturally. I don't think that's excluded at all. So, that's within the realm of possibility. But it's going to happen for a few lucky people like Elon Musk before it happens for shlubs like you and me. There are going to be very angry inequality protesters about the Trump grandchildren, who, models predict will live to be 200 years old. People are not going to be happy about that.Dwarkesh Patel  55:23  So interesting. So, one way to think about these different embryos is if you're producing multiple embryos, and you get to select from one of them, each of them has a call option, right? Therefore, you probably want to optimize for volatility as much, or if not more than just the expected value of the trait. So, I'm wondering if there are mechanisms where you can  increase the volatility in meiosis or some other process. You just got a higher variance, and you can select from the tail better.Steve Hsu  55:55  Well, I'll tell you something related, which is quite amusing. So I talked with some pretty senior people at the company that owns all the dating apps. So you can look up what company this is, but they own Tinder and Match. They’re kind of interested in perhaps including a special feature where you upload your genome instead of Tinder Gold / Premium.  And when you match- you can talk about how well you match the other person based on your genome. One person told me something shocking. Guys lie about their height on these apps. Dwarkesh Patel  56:41  I’m shocked, truly shocked hahaha. Steve Hsu  56:45  Suppose you could have a DNA-verified height. It would prevent gross distortions if someone claims they're 6’2 and they’re 5’9. The DNA could say that's unlikely. But no, the application to what you were discussing is more like, “Let's suppose that we're selecting on intelligence or something. Let's suppose that the regions where your girlfriend has all the plus stuff are complementary to the regions where you have your plus stuff. So, we could model that and say,  because of the complementarity structure of your genome in the regions that affect intelligence, you're very likely to have some super intelligent kids way above your, the mean of your you and your girlfriend's values. So, you could say things like it being better for you to marry that girl than another. As long as you go through embryo selection, we can throw out the bad outliers. That's all that's technically feasible. It's true that one of the earliest patent applications, they'll deny it now. What's her name? Gosh, the CEO of 23andme…Wojcicki, yeah. She'll deny it now. But, if you look in the patent database, one of the very earliest patents that 23andme filed when they were still a tiny startup was about precisely this: Advising parents about mating and how their kids would turn out and stuff like this. We don't even go that far in GP, we don't even talk about stuff like that, but they were thinking about it when they founded 23andme.Dwarkesh Patel  58:38  That is unbelievably interesting. By the way, this just occurred to me—it's supposed to be highly heritable, especially people in Asian countries, who have the experience of having grandparents that are much shorter than us, and then parents that are shorter than us, which suggests that  the environment has a big part to play in it malnutrition or something. So how do you square that our parents are often shorter than us with the idea that height is supposed to be super heritable.Steve Hsu  59:09  Another great observation. So the correct scientific statement is that we can predict height for people who will be born and raised in a favorable environment. In other words, if you live close to a McDonald's and you're able to afford all the food you want, then the height phenotype becomes super heritable because the environmental variation doesn't matter very much. But, you and I both know that people are much smaller if we return to where our ancestors came from, and also, if you look at how much food, calories, protein, and calcium they eat, it's different from what I ate and what you ate growing up. So we're never saying the environmental effects are zero. We're saying that for people raised in a particularly favorable environment, maybe the genes are capped on what can be achieved, and we can predict that. In fact, we have data from Asia, where you can see much bigger environmental effects. Age affects older people, for fixed polygenic scores on the trait are much shorter than younger people.Ancestral populationsDwarkesh Patel  1:00:31  Oh, okay. Interesting. That raises that next question I was about to ask: how applicable are these scores across different ancestral populations?Steve Hsu  1:00:44  Huge problem is that most of the data is from Europeans. What happens is that if you train a predictor in this ancestry group and go to a more distant ancestry group, there's a fall-off in the prediction quality. Again, this is a frontier question, so we don't know the answer for sure. But many people believe that there's a particular correlational structure in each population, where if I know the state of this SNP, I can predict the state of these neighboring SNPs. That is a product of that group's mating patterns and ancestry. Sometimes, the predictor, which is just using statistical power to figure things out, will grab one of these SNPs as a tag for the truly causal SNP in there. It doesn't know which one is genuinely causal, it is just grabbing a tag, but the tagging quality falls off if you go to another population (eg. This was a very good tag for the truly causal SNP in the British population. But it's not so good a tag in the South Asian population for the truly causal SNP, which we hypothesize is the same). It's the same underlying genetic architecture in these different ancestry groups. We don't know if that's a hypothesis. But even so, the tagging quality falls off. So my group spent a lot of our time looking at the performance of predictor training population A, and on distant population B, and modeling it trying to figure out trying to test hypotheses as to whether it's just the tagging decay that’s responsible for most of the faults. So all of this is an area of active investigation. It'll probably be solved in five years. The first big biobanks that are non-European are coming online. We're going to solve it in a number of years.Dwarkesh Patel  1:02:38  Oh, what does the solution look like?  Unless you can identify the causal mechanism by which each SNP is having an effect, how can you know that something is a tag or whether it's the actual underlying switch?Steve Hsu  1:02:54  The nature of reality will determine how this is going to go. So we don't truly  know if the  innate underlying biology is true. This is an amazing thing. People argue about human biodiversity and all this stuff, and we don't even know whether these specific mechanisms that predispose you to be tall or having heart disease are the same  in these different ancestry groups. We assume that it is, but we don't know that. As we get further away to Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, you might see that they have a slightly different architecture than we do. But let's assume that the causal structure is the same for South Asians and British people. Then it's a matter of improving the tags. How do I know if I don't know which one is causal? What do I mean by improving the tags? This is a machine learning problem. If there's a SNP, which is always coming up as very significant when I use it across multiple ancestry groups, maybe that one's casual. As I vary the tagging correlations in the neighborhood of that SNP, I always find that that one is the intersection of all these different sets, making me think that one's going to be causal. That's a process we're engaged in now—trying to do that. Again, it's just a machine learning problem. But we need data. That's the main issue.Dwarkesh Patel  1:04:32  I was hoping that wouldn't be possible, because one way we might go about this research is that it itself becomes taboo or causes other sorts of bad social consequences if you can definitively show that on certain traits, there are differences between ancestral populations, right? So, I was hoping that maybe there was an evasion button where we can't say because they're just tags and the tags might be different between different ancestral populations. But with machine learning, we’ll know.Steve Hsu  1:04:59  That's the situation we're in now, where you have to do some fancy analysis if you want to claim that Italians have lower height potential than Nordics—which is possible. There's been a ton of research about this because there are signals of selection. The alleles, which are activated in height predictors, look like they've been under some selection between North and South Europe over the last 5000 years for whatever reason. But, this is a thing debated by people who study molecular evolution. But suppose it's true, okay? That would mean that when we finally get to the bottom of it, we find all the causal loci for height, and the average value for the Italians is lower than that for those living in Stockholm. That might be true. People don't get that excited? They get a little bit excited about height. But they would get really excited if this were true for some other traits, right?Suppose the causal variants affecting your level of extraversion are systematic, that the average value of those weighed the weighted average of those states is different in Japan versus Sicily. People might freak out over that. I'm supposed to say that's obviously not true. How could it possibly be true? There hasn't been enough evolutionary time for those differences to arise. After all, it's not possible that despite what looks to be the case for height over the last 5000 years in Europe, no other traits could have been differentially selected for over the last 5000 years. That's the dangerous thing. Few people understand this field well enough to understand what you and I just discussed and are so alarmed by it that they're just trying to suppress everything. Most of them don't follow it at this technical level that you and I are just discussing. So, they're somewhat instinctively negative about it, but they don't understand it very well.Dwarkesh Patel  1:07:19  That's good to hear. You see this pattern that by the time that somebody might want to regulate or in some way interfere with some technology or some information, it already has achieved wide adoption. You could argue that that's the case with crypto today. But if it's true that a bunch of IVF clinics worldwide are using these scores to do selection and other things, by the time people realize the implications of this data for other kinds of social questions, this has already been an existing consumer technology.Is this eugenics?Steve Hsu  1:07:58  That's true, and the main outcry will be if it turns out that there are massive gains to be had, and only the billionaires are getting them. But that might have the consequence of causing countries to make this free part of their national health care system. So Denmark and Israel pay for IVF. For infertile couples, it's part of their national health care system. They're pretty aggressive about genetic testing. In Denmark, one in 10 babies are born through IVF. It's not clear how it will go. But we're in for some fun times. There's no doubt about that.Dwarkesh Patel  1:08:45  Well, one way you could go is that some countries decided to ban it altogether. And another way it could go is if countries decided to give everybody free access to it. If you had to choose between the two,  you would want to go for the second one. Which would be the hope. Maybe only those two are compatible with people's moral intuitions about this stuff. Steve Hsu  1:09:10  It’s very funny because most wokist people today hate this stuff. But, most progressives like Margaret Sanger, or anybody who was the progressive intellectual forebears of today's wokist, in the early 20th century, were all that we would call today in Genesis because they were like, “Thanks to Darwin, we now know how this all works. We should take steps to keep society healthy and (not in a negative way where we kill people we don't like, but we should help society do healthy things when they reproduce, and have healthy kids).” Now, this whole thing has just been flipped over among progressives. Dwarkesh Patel  1:09:52  Even in India, less than 50 years ago, Indira Gandhi, she's on the left side of India's political spectrum. She was infamous for putting on these forced sterilization programs. Somebody made an interesting comment about this where they were asked, “Oh, is it true that history always tilts towards progressives? And if so, isn't everybody else doomed? Aren't their views doomed?”The person made a fascinating point: whatever we consider left at the time tends to be winning. But what is left has changed a lot over time, right? In the early 20th century, prohibition was a left cause. It was a progressive cause, and that changed, and now the opposite is the left cause. But now, legalizing pot is progressive. Exactly. So, if Conquest’s second law is true, and everything tilts leftover time, just change what is left is, right? That's the solution. Steve Hsu  1:10:59  No one can demand that any of these woke guys be intellectually self-consistent, or even say the same things from one year to another? But one could wonder what they think about these literally Communist Chinese. They’re recycling huge parts of their GDP to help the poor and the southern stuff. Medicine is free, education is free, right? They're clearly socialists, and literally communists. But in Chinese, the Chinese characters for eugenics is a positive thing. It means healthy production. But more or less, the whole viewpoint on all this stuff is 180 degrees off in East Asia compared to here, and even among the literal communists—so go figure.Dwarkesh Patel  1:11:55  Yeah, very based. So let's talk about one of the traits that people might be interested in potentially selecting for: intelligence. What is the potential for us to acquire the data to correlate the genotype with intelligence?Steve Hsu  1:12:15  Well, that's the most personally frustrating aspect of all of this stuff. If you asked me ten years ago when I started doing this stuff what were we going to get, everything was gone. On the optimistic side of what I would have predicted, so everything's good. Didn't turn out to be interactively nonlinear, or it didn't turn out to be interactively pleiotropic. All these good things, —which nobody could have known a priori how they would work—turned out to be good for gene engineers of the 21st century. The one frustrating thing is because of crazy wokeism, and fear of crazy wokists, the most interesting phenotype of all is lagging b

"By having a large amount of data, we are starting to understand, what does the human genome mean?" In this View From The Top, Alexandra Eitel, MBA '22 sits down with Anne Wojcicki, Co-founder and CEO of 23andMe to discuss breaking down inequality through genetics, statistical power, building trust with transparency , and how digital healthcare is being revolutionized. "I think there should be transparency and there should be choice," says Wojcicki.

Alexandra Eitel, MBA '22, sits down with Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of 23andMe to discuss breaking down inequality through genetics and how leaders should build trust by being unabashedly honest. “The guiding principle for 23andMe is transparency and choice. It's the choice whether you want to get your genetic information, the choice if you want to participate in research, the choice that you don't want to do all these things. And I think that's one of the issues I have in healthcare — most times you're not provided choice and you're not provided transparency.”Wojcicki also recounts stories from the early days of 23andMe to how she's navigating hybrid work today. “Everything is about being redefined,” she says. “Work environments are never going to be the same. And so, how do you really have a hybrid environment? And even at different policies, talking to companies about what are you doing for return to office, or are people coming in. How do you manage vaccinations? Everything has been nonstop of helping manage.”Watch this interview on our YouTube channel.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hold tight as we bring you on a fast-paced ride with the multifaceted, melodious Mike Wojcicki! This entertainment powerhouse, with a resume that includes stints as a game show host, public speaker, writer, and even a virtual game host, takes us on a whirlwind journey through his life, all set to a pulsating and playful soundtrack. Get ready to relive the heady days of MTV music videos and savor the memories of iconic 80s bands like Aerosmith, Poison, and Guns N' Roses, as Mike spins his tales with his trademark humor and insight.Fasten your seatbelts as Mike peels back the curtain on his DJing adventures, from performing Michael Jackson's 'Black and White' at a middle school talent show to using his DJing skills as a unique dating strategy. Don't miss the exhilarating stories of him opening for Frankie Valli at an outdoor concert and his encounters with REO Speedwagon and Jesse McCartney. Mike's tales range from the hilarious to the poignant, and through it all, the throbbing beat of his favorite music provides a rich backdrop.As the finale approaches, Mike shifts the tempo, sharing his philosophy of life, that it's not about reaching a destination, but about enjoying the ride. The power of 'almost' and the joy of living life at full volume are just some of the wisdom nuggets Mike leaves us with. So, turn up the volume, let the rhythm take over, and get ready to be rocked by the infectiously vibrant story of a man who truly believes in living life to the fullest – Listen to the playlist on SpotifyWatch the episode on YouTubeFollow Music Junkies everywhere  Make sure to HIT that LIKE BUTTON and SUBSCRIBE to our Channel to be notified of new episodes! If you love Music Junkies share it !!New EP is out every MONDAY at 12 pm Rock on! Music JunkiesSupport the show

1. TikTok Launches 'TikTok Tactics' Online Course - TikTok has launched a new, video-aligned platform training course for marketers, designed to provide tips and insights on how to make the best use of the platform for brand promotion and development.The new ‘TikTok Tactics' course is an ‘easy to follow, best-practice guide to advertising on TikTok', which provides a range of lessons on attribution, targeting, creative best practices, and more.The course, which you can sign-up for here, focuses on four key elements: Attribution Targeting, Bidding + Optimization Catalog Creative You can sign-up and go through the TikTok Tactics course here.2. TikTok Instant Page Meets Users' and Brands' Needs for Speed - As it looks to maximize business engagement in the app, and boost its revenue opportunities, TikTok is rolling out a new ‘Instant Page' shopping display option, which will enable brands to connect their TikTok ads through to a lightweight, native landing page, built within TikTok itself, which will load up to 11 times faster than standard mobile pages.The process is a lot like Facebook's Instant Articles, with the content built into the app itself, as opposed to referring users off to a third-party website. In the case of Instant Articles, that comes with inherent problems, because it limits the data collection capacity of publishers, where the IA offering is primarily aimed. TikTok's Instant Pages are a little different, in that they're focused, ideally, on direct conversion for brands, but it is still a consideration. If people aren't clicking through to your site, and you're not getting referral traffic data, that could be a concern.To set up a TikTok Instant Page, businesses will need to create an eligible ad on TikTok Ads Manager (full eligibility details here) and then build an Instant Page as the destination link for the campaign.Once you've created an Instant Page, you can save it to your TikTok ad library, so you can add it to multiple campaigns.P.S: TikTok's Instant Pages are currently in testing, available via a TikTok sales rep, but they'll likely be rolled out to more businesses soon. Another consideration for your strategy.3. YouTube Creators to Receive a Separate Account for YouTube Earnings - Google sent emails to YouTube publishers that their YouTube AdSense payments will be separated from their other AdSense payments. So if you get paid through Google AdSense for AdSense ads on your sites and also on YouTube, you will now get payments individually for each.The issue is, that means each has to hit the $100 payment threshold individually and you might get paid out slower. That is, some publishers take time to hit the $100 payment threshold but when you combine AdSense for Search, AdSense for Content, YouTube, and other earnings together, you can hit the $100 payment threshold sooner. Now that Google is paying YouTube out differently, it may take you longer to get a payment from Google if your payments are small - thus hurting smaller publishers.4. YouTube Adds New Guided Support Process for Community Guidelines Violations - YouTube's looking to provide more guidance for creators who've been hit with guideline violations via a new, more detailed reporting process that will take them through the specifics of the issue with their content, and what they can do to resolve it.The updated process will provide more information on the specifics of each violation, and what it means for the visibility and monetization of your content, before taking you through the next steps of how you can resolve the issue.The review process specifies the element in question and then enables creators to update the clip to address the noted concern/s.The last element provides an easy way for creators to ask for a second review if they feel the report was incorrect, while they can also add additional contextual info for YouTube in relation to the violation reported.It's a good update, with many YouTube creators expressing frustration at the platform's current reporting process, which has seen a lot of videos penalized incorrectly. Violations are also reported via a general email template that offers little insight on specifics.5. The Rise of YouTube Shorts And Creator Economy Update - YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has shared an overview of the platform's key areas of focus for 2022, and where it sees new opportunities, which points to some interesting developments in the platform's roadmap, and for online video more broadly.Key elements of focus for YouTube include Shorts, its TikTok-like short video platform, which YouTube reports has now hit 5 trillion all-time views, underlining the potential of the format.Wojcicki also shared that:“The number of channels around the world making more than $10,000 a year is up 40% year over year [while] YouTube's creative ecosystem supported more than 800,000 jobs in 2020. Now there are 10 ways for creators to make money on YouTube. Last year, YouTube Channel Memberships and paid digital goods were purchased or renewed more than 110 million times.”6. Facebook Is Removing Profile Video Feature - Facebook has announced that it's removing video profile images as of February 7th, with people who currently have a video profile image being reverted back to a still picture instead.Originally launched in 2015, profile videos enable users to upload a 7-second video clip, which then loops on repeat, adding an animated, engaging element to their Facebook presence.It hasn't been a highly used feature, but some people have been able to create interesting, even entertaining profile video clips, which adds to the personality of their profile.It's not a major shift, and again, I doubt it will impact many users, nor that many people will care. But if you do have a video profile image, prepare to say goodbye to your clever, 7-second clip that encapsulated your ‘crazy' personality.7. Instagram Rolls Out A Live Banner Feature - Instagram has now outlined its new display of scheduled live streams on creator profiles, providing another way to raise awareness of upcoming live broadcasts in the app.The new display option will enable you to list your upcoming IG live streams on your profile, which, when tapped, will provide additional info in a pop-up prompt, where people can also sign-up for a reminder of when the stream is set to begin.Users can create as many scheduled lives as they like, with a side-scrolling list then added to your profile display.8. Twitter's New Flock Feature Lets You Tweet to Select Followers - Creating a separation between your public and personal lives has become more difficult than ever before due to the rise of social media, and there is no platform in which this difficulty of separation becomes more apparent than with Twitter. Having a large following on Twitter can often result in you being forced to censor yourself for fear of revealing too much to followers that you might not even know. Going private is one way to curb this issue, but many users felt that this left them between a rock and hard place because private Twitter accounts are rather limited in their scope.Twitter is trying to fix this by taking a leaf out of Instagram's book. Similar to how on Instagram you can have a circle of close friends that you share more personal or private content with that would not be visible to your regular followers, Twitter is rolling out a new feature called “Flocks”. You can add up to 150 people to your Flock, and anything that you tweet to said Flock would not be visible by anyone else. This gives most users the best of both worlds. We already saw an experiment called Trusted Friends back in July, and it seems that Twitter is now rolling it out properly with a new name that appears to be more or less on brand from most points of view.9. Twitter Updates Its Ad Platform - Twitter has announced some new updates to its ad platform which are designed to streamline ad targeting, while also providing more insights on campaign performance.First off, Twitter's changing the name of its ‘Website Clicks & Conversions' objective to ‘Website Traffic', a more generalized header, which will now also include a new ‘Site Visits Optimization' goal within your available campaign objectives.Now, when setting up a Website Traffic campaign, you'll be able to use ‘Site visits' as the goal, which will then direct Twitter's system to serve your ads to audiences most likely to visit your website. That will then enable Twitter's systems to better determine audience objectives, and present your ads to the right users. Twitter says that it's seen strong results with site visits in testing, and it'll be interesting to see whether the new goal generates a better direct response to your promoted tweets.In addition to this, Twitter's also adding a new aggregated view of site metrics and conversion events within Twitter Ads Manager, which Twitter's adding as a means to counter data loss as a result of Apple's ATT update, and more users opting out of in-app tracking.The process will utilize data gathered via Twitter's website tag to provide a generalized estimate of key metrics, by Ad Group, at campaign level, by device type (iOS or Android), and placement level, where possible. The data obviously won't be as accurate as you would get from direct reporting via the Twitter tag on each user response, but by providing some insight into user actions, Twitter will be able to replace a level of indicative insight that's been lost due to the iOS change.And finally, Twitter's adding a new ‘Events Manager' dashboard to manage your Twitter Website Tag and its associated web-based conversion events.The new Events Manager overview will provide in-depth insight on tag events, enabling you to better track and utilize the data being gathered from your site visitors.10. Microsoft Earnings: Search, LinkedIn Advertising Revenue Rise - Microsoft posted the second quarter of its 2022 financial results today, reporting revenue of $51.7 billion and a net income of $18.8 billion. Revenue is up 20 percent, and net income has increased by 21 percent.Search and news advertising revenue was up by 32% year on year, which is impressive when you consider the fact that Microsoft was not even a major player in this industry not too long ago which represents just how many new revenue streams it has developed over the years.Another area of growth is LinkedIn. The social media platform geared towards professional networking got a 37% increase in revenue year over year. A lot of that has to do with an increased demand for advertising on the platform, making this one of the most successful acquisitions that Microsoft has managed to complete during its recent history. LinkedIn has gone from being a relative footnote in the social media industry to a major player that is considered one of the top social media sites from an advertising point of view.Overall, Microsoft earned $10 billion from advertising alone if you include LinkedIn. It has also seen strong growth in some of its more traditional areas of expertise like PC which earned Microsoft well over $17 billion, representing a 15% increase in that area during a time when many other industries are seeing decreased sales.

YouTube is considering offering non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as a way “to help creators capitalize on emerging technologies including things like NFTs," CEO Susan Wojcicki wrote in an open letter about the video streaming platform's 2022 priorities. Wojcicki said her team is looking ahead to the future and has been following everything happening in Web 3 “as a source of inspiration to continue innovating on YouTube.” “The past year in the world of crypto, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and even decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) has highlighted a previously unimaginable opportunity to grow the connection between creators and their fans,” Wojcicki wrote. Two YouTube executives announced their departures from the Google-owned company with plans to pursue Web 3 ventures on Tuesday, based on tweets from their personal accounts. The departures come on the same day as CEO Susan Wojcicki issued an open letter saying YouTube is looking into non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as a way to help creators monetize their content.

On this week's live talk show, we've got guests Warwick Johnson-Cadwell ("Falconspeare") + Rich Wojcicki ("Deadbeats & Miscreants"). SUBSCRIBE ON RSS, ITUNES, ANDROID, SPOTIFY, STITCHER OR THE APP OF YOUR CHOICE. FOLLOW US ON TWITTER, INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK. SUPPORT OUR SHOWS ON PATREON. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/comicbookclub See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Esther Wojcicki is no stranger to the concept of innovation. She's the famous parent of the Wojcicki sisters, all of whom have achieved tremendous professional success: one is now the CEO of Youtube, the other the CEO of 23andMe, and the last a leading researcher currently at UCSF. She has written two books, one on parenting called "How to Raise Successful People" and one on pedagogy called "Moonshots in Education". Esther herself has an impressive resume. As a former high school teacher that has earned multiple teaching awards, she has a long career in education, journalism, and technology. Now, Esther is the co-founder of Tract, a peer to peer learning platform where kids ages 8 to 14 watch videos created by inspiring and ambitious teenagers.

Welcome to "Ask the Tech Coach," a podcast for Instructional Coaches and Technology Integration Specialists. In this episode of “https://www.teachercast.net/episodes/ask-the-tech-coach/ (Ask the Tech Coach),” Jeff and Susan welcome http://tract.app/ (Tract) co-founders Esther Wojcicki and Ari Memar, a peer-to-peer online community designed for kids in grades 3 - 12 to discover new interests, fuel their creativity, and develop 21st Century skills through engaging classes and clubs led by outstanding student leaders who inspire, mentor, and guide kid's learning. onto the program to discuss the importance of having all of our students exited to come to school each day to experience dynamic learning experiences. If you would like to be a part of future podcasts and share your thoughts, https://www.teachercast.net/podcastguestform (please contact the podcast).  We would love to have you join the show. Join the TeacherCast Tech Coaches Network! Are you a Tech Coach or looking to become one this year? Are you searching for support in your position? The https://www.teachercast.net/TCNForm (TeacherCast Tech Coaches Network), is a brand new Professional Learning Network designed specifically for Tech Coaches and designed to provide weekly support for all Instructional Coaches. https://www.teachercast.net/TCNForm (Click Here to Join!) About Tract http://tract.app/ (Tract) is the world's first peer-to-peer learning platform that provides kids ages 8+ with project-based learning activities to ignite their imagination and help them develop creativity, independence, critical thinking skills, and skills in problem-solving. Tract content can be used in school or at home in a 100 percent ad-free environment that is moderated and curated by a team of education experts led by Esther Wojcicki. Learn more at http://tract.app/ (tract.app). https://teach.tract.app/ ()   Links of Interest Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tractlearning/ (@tractlearning) Twitter: https://twitter.com/tractlearning (@tractlearning) Facebook: http://facebook.com/tractlearning (@tractlearning ) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tract-learning/ (@tract-learning) TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@tract.app (@tract.app) About our Guests Esther Wojcicki - Tract Cofounder + Chief Learning Officer Esther Wojcicki is known as the GodMother of Silicon Valley because of the number of highly successful students coming out of her program at Palo Alto High. She is co-founder of http://tract.app/ (TractLearning), Inc (2020), founder of the largest scholastic media program in the US at Palo Alto High (1984), the 2002 California Teacher of the Year; a 2009 MacArthur Foundation Research Fellow. Dr. Wojcicki was Chair of Creative Commons, Chair of PBS Learning Matters, and on the Board of the Freedom Forum, the Newseum, & the Alliance for Excellent Education. She co-founded the Journalistic Learning Initiative at the University of Oregon, is CEO of GlobalMoonshotsinEducation.org (2019) and holds three honorary doctorates. She is the author of Moonshots in Education (2014) and How to Raise Successful People (May, 2019). She is mother of CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki; CEO of 23andMe, Anne Wojcicki, and Fulbright Scholar, Janet Wojcicki. Ari Memar = Tract Cofounder + CEO Ari Memar is the CEO and Co-founder of Tract - the world's first peer-to-peer learning community - which he started with his former high school teacher, Esther Wojcicki. Prior to starting http://tract.app/ (Tract), Ari was a Product Leader at Uber, helping start and scale several new business lines within Uber's New Mobility division. Contact the Podcast! http://www.teachercast.net/VoiceMail (TeacherCast.net/VoiceMail) Twitter: http://twitter.com/askthetechcoach (@AskTheTechCoach) Email: feedback@teachercast.net Subscribe to “Ask the Tech Coach”...

Anne Wojcicki is sitting on a treasure trove of genetic data. The co-founder and chief executive of 23andMe has led the genetic testing company through 14 years in which it has collected data from millions of customers through their at-home DNA spit test kits. In 2018, the company announced a collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline to use this anonymized, aggregated data to develop new pharmaceutical drugs — and attracted a $300 million investment from the pharmaceutical giant. And in June, when Wojcicki took the company public, it was valued at $3.5 billion. In some ways, it's a standard Silicon Valley play: Lure customers in with the promise of democratizing information before quickly moving to monetize that information. But what are the implications when the information at stake is your DNA?In this conversation, Kara Swisher presses Wojcicki on the ethical, privacy and security questions intertwined with the 23andMe business model. They discuss what the rise of genetic testing might mean for today's 2-year-olds and how the United States is faring in a “genetic information race” with China. And they dig into the ongoing Theranos trial — specifically, whether the case against Elizabeth Holmes will rein in a Silicon Valley health tech sector that, in the past, has run a little wild.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more information for all episodes at nytimes.com/sway, and you can find Kara on Twitter @karaswisher.

In this episode, Ed Wojcicki shares 8 leadership principles he has learned from his 42 years of leadership and management experience in journalism, higher education, and now as the Executive Director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. Ed is also an author and has published two books, "Crisis of Hope in the Modern World" and "Nobody Calls Just to Say Hello". The books can be found at the links below. Crisis of Hope in the Modern World:https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Hope-Modern-World-Challenges/dp/0883472538/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=crisis+of+hope+in+the+modern+world&qid=1598099022&s=books&sr=1-6 Nobody Calls Just to Say Hello:https://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Calls-Just-Say-Hello/dp/0809330717/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=nobody+calls+just+to+say+hello&qid=1598099095&s=books&sr=1-1

Anne Wojcicki is a biologist, entrepreneur and the CEO of 23andMe, the leading consumer genetics and research company with more than 12 million customers worldwide.  On this episode, Wojcicki spoke ... The post Episode 24: Anne Wojcicki of 23andMe talks COVID-19 testing, your genes and the future of medicine appeared first on Fixing Healthcare.

W programie Jarosław Kuźniar rozmawia z Karolem Wójcickim o współczesnej edukacji, rozwoju technologicznym, kosmosie i "Wielkiej księdze marzeń".

What Happens When Rs and Ds Talk With Each Other, Rather than At or About?Guest: David Blankenhorn, President, and Co-founder of Better AngelsHow upset would you be if your child married an ardent Trump supporter? Or ardent Clinton supporter? Back in the 60s, hardly any parents said they'd be unhappy if their son or daughter married someone from the other party. Today half of Americans –both Republicans and Democrats –told YouGov's survey-takers they'd be uncomfortable or upset by a cross-party marriage in the family. A nonprofit group called “Better Angels” has spent the last two years bringing together ardent Democrats and Republicans in hopes of fostering civil dialogue Making Up Lost Sleep Won't Make You Any HealthierGuest: Christopher Depner, Assistant Research Professor of Integrative Physiology at the University of Colorado, BoulderGetting enough sleep is hard! It's tempting to skimp during the week and catch up with a good long sleep over the weekend. Fasting Slows AgingGuest: Paolo Sassone-Corsi, Director, Center for Epigenetics and Metabolism, University of California, IrvineMost religions the world over have fasting rituals. And you'll find fasting touted all over the health and beauty magazine rack right now, too. Catching Killers with Their Family's DNAGuest: Harley FeldmanDNA solves serious crimes on TV all the time. In real life, it's less common, but a couple of big serial killer cases have been solved using a technique that's gaining traction in police departments. It's called familial DNA –and it's where police track down a suspect not in the database by finding a close relative who is. Only about a dozen states currently allow police to do this kind of DNA search. Critics say it's a potential violation of privacy a new tool for racial profiling. But Harley Feldman is a major proponent of police using familial DNA because it's what allowed Arizona police to finally arrest a suspect in the murder of his daughter Allison. Tom Wolfe, American's First ConciergeGuest: Tom Wolfe, Chief Concierge, The FairmontThe concierge is a fixture in luxury hotels, discreetly recommending a great place to eat or snagging you a seat to the sold-out show. But it wasn't until 1974 that concierges even existed in America. That was the year Tom Wolfe opened a concierge desk at The Fairmont in San Francisco modeled on what he'd seen in Europe. How to Raise Successful PeopleGuest: Esther Wojcicki, Journalist, Educator, Author of “How to Raise Successful People: Simple Lessons for Radical Results”The CEO of YouTube and the CEO of 23andMe are sisters. Their other sister is a pediatrician and professor at UC-San Francisco. Can you just imagine the questions their mom gets at dinner parties? What's your secret? How did you raise such successful kids? Now the world can read her secrets. Her name is Esther Wojcicki. She's a journalist and long-time teacher at Palo Alto High School where she founded a media arts program based on learning through collaboration. Wojcicki's book is “How to Raise Successful People: Simple Lessons for Radical Results.”

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki defended her company's efforts to keep violent content off the video platform at the sixth annual Lesbians Who Tech Summit Friday in San Francisco. Wojcicki was interviewed by New York Times columnist Kara Swisher, who took the YouTube leader to task for the platform's failure to keep dangerous content away from kids.

W programie Jarosław Kuźniar rozmawia z Karolem Wójcickim o testach SpaceX i kapsule Dragon, która z manekinem na pokładzie, wystartowała w podróż na Międzynarodową Stację Kosmiczną.

A journalist and professor at Palo Alto High School (California, USA) for over 30 years, Esther Wojcicki is considered as a pioneer in the study of media literacy applied to education. Along with creativity, critical thinking and collaboration, Wojcicki holds that communication is one of the key skills that must be taught at schools to achieve a more relevant learning in the 21st century.

Former St. Louis Blues Forward and Enforcer Tony Twist. Wojtek Wojcicki, Former Owner of the NPSL's Edmonton Drillers. 

Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the popular DNA-testing company 23andMe, discusses how providing people with their own genetic data empowers consumers to make better health decisions and advances science. In conversation with Stanford Professor of the Practice Tina Seelig, Wojcicki explains how the intense scrutiny that the DNA-testing company has received is a sign that it is disrupting the status quo.