23andMe Results

I recently received 23andMe DNA results. There's nothing earth-shattering in the report. For example, I have a 1% chance of a heart attack over the next decade. Also, as of January 2011, my carrier statuses indicated all the relevant variants were absent for selected disease categories, including--I kid you not--Maple Syrup Urine Disease Type 1B.

Basically, I'm "typical" in most categories. One category where I have a higher than average risk? Heroin addiction. Yes, it's weird and interesting at the same time, because Alexander the Great introduced opium in the Middle East and Persia. (I was born in Iran, and both my parents are Iranians with a long line of Iranian descendants.) More access to a particular drug in a particular region might skew results relating to the drug's susceptibility, so all genetic data has to be taken with a grain of salt. Below are more selected results, in case you are interested:

In addition to having higher odds of becoming a heroin addict, I am a likely sprinter (i.e., not a long distance runner), built for short bursts of speed and power; resistant to stomach "flu"; I "effectively learn to avoid errors" (although it's entirely unclear how it's possible to analyze this trait from a genetic profile); and I have reduced sensitivity to sweaty odor (Tell me if I stink, people! Apparently, I can't help it :-)

Globally, my genetic similarities most closely match peoples in Southern Europe, then Northern Europe, then the Middle East. I have some similarities with Sephardic/Spanish Jews and Lebanese (Phoenician?) people; ancestrally, 98% of my chromosomes are closely related to Europeans with 2% closely related to Asians.

On my dad's side, it looks like his profile closely matches Southern Europe as well as Iran. From his side, I have similarities with Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Crete, and Italy, as well as modern-day populations of Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Albania. 

Mind you, I don't entirely understand how 23andMe matches specific religions with genes. All human beings are closely linked genetically, so if more Druze than Jews provide data to a particular genetic study, isn't it possible for the researchers to start referencing "Jewish" genes as "Druze" genes? How can a genetic study accurately classify more or fewer study participants from one race or religion than exist in the general population? In other words, isn't it possible to have skewed results if the participants providing genetic data do not match the percentages of races/religions in the actual population?

In any case, on my mom's side, it looks like her profile closely matches Russia/Finland or Morocco (including Basques and the Saami (Lapps) of northern Scandinavia). It sounds improbable to be similar to both Finnish and Moroccan people, but the people known today as Finns apparently split up about 6,000 years ago. Some of them crossed into Morocco, while others continued to modern-day Finland. Also, the Aryans came out of India and moved throughout modern-day Europe, parts of Northern Africa, and parts of the Middle East. (Anyone from two parents and grandparents who were born near a large body of water probably has a diverse genetic mix.) 

Regarding the potential link to Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, do I look like actor Hank Azaria or Oded Fehr? I'm not sure. (Note: Oded Fehr is an interesting case--both his parents are Jewish, and his father appears to be of Northern European descent (German) while his mother appears to be of Southern European descent (Spanish).) Persian, Spanish, and Northern African Jews have an interesting history--for starters, look up the Biblical story of Esther; Cordoba or Qurtuba, Spain (and compare Cordoba under Muslim rule to 400 years later, i.e., the beginning of the Catholic Spanish Inquisition); the Golden Age of Arab Rule in Iberia; Maimonides; and the Almohad conquest of Cordoba in 1148.

If I am an Iranian with genetic links to Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, it doesn't surprise me, because my Persian ancestors protected Jews during the Persian Empire. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that important fact from all the inane rhetoric and verbal pissing contests between modern-day Israel and modern-day Iran. Seems like these days, people try to look for reasons to be different or hostile towards one another--even when the facts justify a more nuanced perspective.

Disclaimer: I do not waive my privacy rights in any way, shape, or form. I have only disclosed a small portion of my available results.

Update on 7/2/13: well, this is interesting--the site has updated my ancestry:

99.7% Middle Eastern and North African;
0.1% European; and
0.3% Unassigned

It has a new feature as well: I am 2.6% Neanderthal, which is in the 32nd percentile. [Update in 2014: this now shows as ranked in the 60th percentile.]

Update on 9/22/14: the site updated my ancestry again:

Seen another way, I'm 86.5% Middle Eastern; 2.2% Southeast Asian; 2.1% European; 0.8 Yakut; and less than 0.1% Ashkenazi.

Some interesting drug response updates: someone with my genotype 1) typically metabolizes PPIs at a rapid rate; 2) may be more sensitive to warfarin; 3) may have slightly increased sensitivity to phenytoin; and 4) and may have somewhat reduced ability to clear sulfonylurea drugs from the body.

Update on August 2017: the site has updated my ancestry again. Apparently, my ancestors from my father's side were part of the first farmers, a group that modernized agriculture. (J-M172 haplogroup, also known as J2.) The most interesting outlier continues to be my 0.8% Yakut genes.

Note: I do not waive my privacy rights in any way, shape, or form. I have only disclosed a small portion of my available results. 

More Data

Data from Pew Center on American demographics:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flows/

Check out California--people have been moving out. If anyone has info on jobs in San Marcos, TX or Nashville, TN, please email me.

Bonus I: Grading the States.

Bonus II: Data on Immigration (2010).

Bonus III: Data on Immigration (2007).

Bonus IV: Immigrants by State (2007). [CIS report]

Adventures in Linguistics and Listening

I attended a legal seminar on civility where a judge said something I didn't hear. Whatever the judge was saying, I hadn't heard or seen the words used in the same way before, so I wasn't able to process the words. (Most people who know me understand I am severely hearing impaired, but if you don't know that, all you can really notice is that I cannot properly elucidate a few words and have a weird accent when saying particular words.)

About three days later, completely by chance, I read an article using the phrase, Nine Scorpions in a Bottle, referring to Max Lerner's book. I was immediately able to fill in the blanks from three days ago and understand what the judge was saying. This doesn't make sense to me at all. Three days later?

Yet, I had the exact same experience when I went to court my first year. I could not hear anything. Well, I could hear people mouthing words, but my brain was unable to process any of it into comprehensible words. So I would go into court, and judges were saying words like "Case management status," "Neutral evaluation," "judicial arbitration," etc. None of these words are complex or difficult, but they are not generally used in the same order. It wasn't until about six months later that my brain was able to hear and process these words. So it's clear that when it comes to unusual words or words used in an unusual style, I have to either see or fully understand them before I can actually hear them. At the same time, I don't understand the language process at all. Does this mean I have to basically expose myself to most variations of words so I can maintain my ability to process language? Sigh.

Intuit's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2011)

(Image above was added and taken on July 12, 2012)

I attended Intuit's annual shareholder meeting on January 19, 2011. CEO Brad Smith was his usual effervescent, charismatic self and handled the informal presentation. Shareholders were treated to Peet's coffee, Odwalla juice, slices of cake, scones, and fruit as well as a complimentary Quicken 2011 or TurboTax Investments and Rental Property CD. (Unfortunately, I can't use either one because I use TurboTax and Quicken's business versions.)

Among CEO Smith's Powerpoint slides, several stood out:

1. Intuit sees the market shifting from DIY to "Do It for Me." For example, look at Quicken. It automatically downloads information for you and renders much of the accounting process automatic.

2. CEO Smith drew laughs when he said that these days, when someone asks whether you can type 60 words a minute, the answer is still yes--and he then proceeded to mimic the motion of cell phone texting. His point was that Americans are using mobile phones to replace older technology, and Intuit was ahead of the curve.

3. CEO Smith is focusing on growth in Southeast Asia and India, although Intuit does not offer tax prep services in India. Intuit's businesses in India revolve around helping small businesses advertise and acquire paying customers, especially through the use of mobile phone services.

4. One of the coolest new products is Snaptax. Taxpayers filing 1040EZ forms pay only $14.99 when filing their tax returns, which is a good return on investment if you receive any kind of substantial IRS refund. More here.

The Q&A session was interesting. One shareholder, a Mac user, explained his experience buying a Mac and Intuit's Quicken software. He patiently and intelligently explained that Intuit's latest version of Quicken for Mac was terrible--because it was a barebones version of the PC version--causing him to go back to the Apple store and demand a refund. Then, when he arrived back home, he uploaded his much older Quicken program, which had more features than the new version made specifically for Apple.

He said he was "pissed off" with the experience and wondered why Intuit was able to offer TurboTax to Apple users but not Quicken. (In a deliciously sardonic aside, he pointed to his complimentary TurboTax and Quicken CDs and referred to them as a local shareholder's "dividend." Intuit, despite its large cash reserves, does not pay a dividend.)

Mr. Smith explained that his team had chosen to focus on the PC version of Quicken after Apple's woes many years ago. Recently, however, Intuit developed a Quicken for Mac version from scratch called Quicken Essentials. This new software is only a few months old, and Mr. Smith said he hoped customers would understand the difference between Quicken for PC--which has decades' worth of improvements--and Quicken Essentials for Mac, which is a work in progress.

I asked how the government was helping Intuit and how it was hindering Intuit. Obviously, Intuit's tax software business relies on a reasonably good relationship with the government. (Page 20 of Intuit's 10K states, "[T]here have been significant new regulations and heightened focus by the government on these [tax, payroll, payments, financial services and healthcare] areas.")

Mr. Smith said that he hoped for a mutually beneficial partnership with the government. At the same time, the government can be a hindrance when it seeks to provide tax preparation directly to consumers, which is not the government's core competency. Each side should stick with what they do best, said Mr. Smith.

I also asked about improving Quicken with respect to uploading pictures of receipts and invoices. Many businesses keep their receipts and copies of invoices in shoeboxes or envelopes. Why not allow a user to take a picture of a receipt or invoice with his/her camera and upload it or email it to Quicken, which will automatically match the invoice/receipt with the appropriate line item?

One key issue would be whether the IRS will accept e-versions of receipts and invoices as sufficient evidence in case of an audit; however, even without full IRS acceptance, adding an e-receipts feature to Quicken would help small businesses stay organized. Mr. Smith said the company was working on a product called QuickReceipts.

On another note, I was really happy to get the opportunity to briefly chat with Intuit co-founder Scott Cook after the meeting. Mr. Cook, lest we forget, helped Intuit beat Microsoft during its heyday years when it tried to foist Microsoft Money on the public. In an ironic twist, Microsoft's software ventures outside of its dominant operating system software have been failures, primarily because it keeps trying to compete with other natural quasi-natural-monopolies like Intuit and Sony/Nintendo.

I mentioned to Mr. Cook that I wasn't so keen on the idea of looking for growth and profitability in India. India has a very fragmented consumer marketplace, making it very difficult for any company to establish a dominant foothold (which harms a company's ability to increase its margins; it also has poor infrastructure; and most analysts who focus on India use financial projections based on overly optimistic macro factors (i.e., multiply anything by a billion and it looks like you can make lots of money). Mr. Cook politely explained that the first step was to generate revenue, and then profits.

I always enjoy Intuit's annual meetings and encourage shareholders to attend.

Disclosure: I own an insignificant number of Intuit (INTU) shares. I participated in one paid Intuit survey in 2010.

SCU Basketball Beats Gonzaga!

On November 6, 2010, here's what I wrote about Kevin Foster: "#21 (Kevin Foster) will be the x-factor [this season]. He is blessed with an excellent wingspan and incredible athleticism, but seems a little raw." Well, Foster was the x-factor tonight--and much more. He shredded Gonzaga and scored 36 points, including six treys.

You know the phrase, "He's on fire"? It's incredible to see it right in front of your eyes. One time, Foster was about three feet behind the three-point line but launched a shot anyway, causing me to groan. The next thing I know, the ball hits nothing but the bottom of the net, and the crowd is going wild. Every time he took a three point shot after that, we all knew it was going in.

I had a prime seat. I was sitting two rows across from Brandi Chastain, who came with her son, and I was sitting in front of the coach's mom. The coach's mom is awesome. When Foster started heating up, we had about six minutes left, and the almost capacity crowd could taste the win. But Coach Kerry Keating's mother was so anxious, whenever Foster made a three pointer, she was sitting down, wringing her hands. It wasn't till we were plenty ahead with under three minutes left that she started cheering vociferously like everyone else. You gotta love a Mom who respects the basketball gods.

After the win, almost all the students stormed the court, hugging everyone in sight and screaming "SCU!" After the frenzied celebration, I exited Leavey Center to go back to my car and passed a bunch of students who had set fire to an old couch. The fire department extinguished the small fire quickly, but the students had already had their fun.

What a game. January 20, 2011. We beat Gonzaga. And Kevin Foster had a game we will all remember for the rest of our lives.

Jason Kelly on Toxic Assets

Jason Kelly has a really interesting perspective on toxic assets--he thinks we are the most toxic asset, or more specifically, the financially illiterate amongst us:

Financially stupid people are America’s most toxic asset. They fail to see the money-trap society around them. They live in a world controlled by corporations seeking to extract as much of their wealth as possible, and the moronic masses open wide for every lure...

They trust false promises of bought-off politicians. They sit mesmerized before advertising campaigns telling them to buy trifles they don’t need using debt they can’t repay. They stumble down the path paved by big business that transfers their income to corporate coffers. They don’t realize that the way of the world is not the way they want to live, then they wonder what happened when they end up broke and hopeless.

More here.

Jeff Rosen's Swearing-In Ceremony: Poorly Planned

If you missed Jeff Rosen's public swearing-in ceremony on January 19, 2011, don't worry about it. The event was poorly planned, leaving many people waiting outside, unable to get in. Security guards and event personnel locked the doors while the event was happening, leaving me to try the balcony view. However, when I attempted to find a spot on the balcony, security personnel grabbed my arm  and took me outside.  

Yup, a security guard escorted me out, even after I explained I had RSVPed and even after two other people exited the balcony. He wouldn't give me his card, so I snapped a picture. Then I, along with many other people, waited downstairs and was allowed to enter after the event was over. So much for "being on the list." I hope Mr. Rosen's office publishes a transcript of his speech online. From what I understand, Mr. Rosen was very conciliatory towards his predecessor in his speech.

On the way down, I spoke with Moises "Mo" Reyes, Jr., apparently the head of security for the event. He was polite and explained that fire department regulations prevented security from letting in more people; in fact, the existing number of people inside was already over the legal limit, so even when people left, they couldn't let anyone else in. He also explained that security did not plan the event, and the event planning department was in charge. That all makes sense. I wish the guy upstairs would have told me the same thing instead of just grabbing my arm and telling me to leave.

In case you're wondering why people were able to go inside after the event was over, but not during the event, Mr. Reyes Jr. said (paraphrased) he believed fire regulations were more broad for standing room vs. sitting down.

The event wasn't a total loss. First, the food was quite good. I had coffee, fruit, chocolate-dipped strawberries, and about ten chocolate chip cookies. (I'd like to thank Santa Clara County taxpayers for my dinner tonight.) [Update: the catering and rental space cost only $6K, with half going to the City of San Jose; however, there were many county security personnel on duty, so the actual costs are probably much higher.] Second, as I will explain below, I finally learned why so many public defenders supported Mr. Rosen. I had initially intended to vote for Dolores Carr, the incumbent. I was concerned because Ms. Carr is married to a police officer, but I didn't view a personal relationship as sufficient rationale to justify removing a sitting D.A.

Moreover, the brouhaha about Carr's blanket peremptory strike--which forces a particular judge to withdraw from criminal cases--seemed overblown. If you examine the underlying facts, Carr was upset because a judge had released a child molester despite having the discretion to keep him behind bars. Rosen and Carr were in the D.A.'s office during the time the child molester was released, so I still don't understand why Carr didn't more clearly state that her office disagreed with the judge's release of a child molester and felt that the judge had gone out of her way to blame the D.A.'s office for technical violations rather than using her discretion to keep him behind bars. She could have then said she didn't believe any other judge would have released the child molester, so she didn't anticipate another use of the peremptory strike, which, by the way, is something the legislature specifically makes available to lawyers for precisely this scenario. Of course, there are at least two ways of looking at the blanket strike issue, but Carr seemed to concede fault by not highlighting the particular facts that led her to issue the blanket strike.

In any case, it really bothered me that every single public defender and criminal defense lawyer I knew supported Jeff Rosen. The day before the election, Mr. Rosen left me a message on my answering machine, asking me for my vote. What the heck, I thought. Ms. Carr hadn't seemed to do any substantial campaigning, and I had to admire Mr. Rosen's excellent campaigning skills and endorsements from numerous lawyers I personally knew.

Yet, up to tonight, I hadn't learned exactly why criminal defense lawyers seemed to favor Mr. Rosen over Ms. Carr. I ran into a classmate and defense lawyer, who explained to me that Mr. Rosen had promised an "open discovery" process, whereas Ms. Carr's office (as well as her predecessor's) seemed to have a history of not disclosing all material evidence in good faith. Under Mr. Rosen's new policy, any defense lawyer may go into the D.A.'s office and see all of his/her client's files except for work product and the usual exceptions. If anyone wants to understand why Mr. Rosen's policy makes sense, they should watch the excellent 1993 movie, In the Name of the Father. In the meantime, I hope Mr. Rosen gets used to his popularity and does a better job planning future events.

Disclaimer: unless specifically stated otherwise, no portion of this blog is commercial in nature in any fashion, nor operated for profit. The author sincerely believes that this post addresses issues of public interest. The events discussed above took place in a public government building open to the public. The picture above was taken in a public government building at an event open to the public, and the person photographed did not object to the taking of the picture at the time it was taken. [Update: picture was removed on February 14, 2012]