(Not a) GNU Make quirk, or why logs should be provided

About two months ago I was writing about a quirk I found in GNU Make related to the $(patsubst ) function.

I have just tried this on my Debian Wheezy laptop which has make 3.81, but I wasn't able to reproduce the issue with the version from Debian (3.81-8.2).

The makefile looks like this:

PATH := ../some/prefixCPU12suf/include
CPUINC := $(patsubst ../some/prefix%,%,$(PATH))
CPU := $(patsubst %/include,%,$(CPUINC))

default:
    @echo "PATH   = $(PATH)"
    @echo "CPUINC = $(CPUINC)"
    @echo "CPU    = $(CPU)"

And the result was correct:

0 eddy@heidi /tmp $ make
PATH   = ../some/prefixCPU12/include
CPUINC = CPU12/include
CPU    = CPU12
0 eddy@heidi /tmp $ make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This program built for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

The worst part is that I know I tested this issue on 3.82 on Cygwin and on Linux with the 3.82 version and it failed, but I wasn't able to remember how I did it. I started searching through the directory where I knew there could be the test makefile, I wasn't able to find it, until I remembered what I was trying to achieve.

From a path like ../some/prefixCPU12suf/include I wanted to use % to remove the parts 'some/prefix' and 'suf/include' because in the directory ../CPU12 there were some files that needed to be processed.

The actual issue is that GNU Make's '%' is not analogous to shell's '*', so that means code like this does not work as I assumed anf the 'pref' part is not an anchor:

PATH := ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPUINC := $(patsubst pref%,%,$(PATH))
CPU := $(patsubst %suf/include,%,$(CPUINC))

default:
    @echo "PATH   = $(PATH)"
    @echo "CPUINC = $(CPUINC)"
    @echo "CPU    = $(CPU)"

Which leads to these results, no matter the version:

0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ ./make -f /tmp/makefile
PATH   = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPUINC = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPU    = ../some/prefCPU12
0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ ./make --version
GNU Make 3.82
Built for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Copyright (C) 2010  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ make -f /tmp/makefile
PATH   = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPUINC = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPU    = ../some/prefCPU12
0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This program built for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Not sure if this could be qualified as a true bug, or a if the way I expected is a nice to have feature, but, in any case, the behaviour is consistent, unlike my brain which failed to initially identify the inconsistency in my code:

0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ grep patsubst /tmp/makefile
CPUINC := $(patsubst pref%,%,$(PATH))
CPU := $(patsubst %suf,%,$(CPUINC))
0 eddy@heidi ~/usr/src/make/make-profiler/make-3.82 $ make -f /tmp/makefile
PATH   = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPUINC = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include
CPU    = ../some/prefCPU12suf/include

Note that this behaviour of patsubst is asymtric to how subst works, as explained in the updated old post.

This took some extra effort to remember what was the actual issue, and shows why logs are important when reporting an issue, and why reporting issues as soon as they were encountered: because human brains are faulty. (Yes, yours, too!)

Faulty logic - confusing correlation with causation

I want to start this post by saying two things:

1. It is sad when a good person decides to commit suicide
2. It is even sadder anyone writing on a subject like this MUST add this kind of disclaimers in the hope the message of the writing isn't distorted because we are unable to listen to each other without suspecting/blaming the other of pure evilness/lack of compassion.

 Imagine you are working in an office with other colleagues and one of them makes a print screen of your desktop screen and then displays it full-screen on your computer. You struggle a little and get frustrated when nothing works, the colleagues laugh at your expense. Pretty childish, but no harm, right? You laugh it off.

 Imagine a similar scenario, but your shoelaces are tied to the desk without your notice, and the colleagues tied your laces so you can't stand, so the risk of injury is null. You stumble a little when you want to leave the desk. Again, childish, funny, but no harm, right? Again, you laugh it off.

 Imagine even a scenario where you are the target of a prank that doesn't injure you physically, but it happens in front of an audience of 100 people. You might feel ashamed, embarrassed, depending on the prank. But that would go away with time, with your laughs or by leaving that audience, right?

 So now imagine you are just a person that unknowingly contributed to the success of a harmless prank in which somebody was duped into thinking they were talking to a very public figure about some unimportant and inconsequential stuff related to their job. You'd brush it off, wouldn't you? Most likely, you'd probably laugh at the prank and you wouldn't think the pranksters should be prosecuted or fired. Even if the famous public figure would be upset, taking into account the fact that the things discussed were inconsequential, you wouldn't worry about it. I wouldn't worry even if that famous person was my direct boss and I was the one talking about my boss.

 At least, that's how I am thinking, but for some reason, many people don't think this way. And yes, I am talking about the recent sad news about the apparent suicide of a nurse who was involved in the care of the person called Kate Middleton.

 I don't want to talk about names, or man-made titles, man-made concepts, or how some people forget that even the most influential people in the world are still a member of this same species that all of us are. I don't even want to talk about this particular sad situation, I just want to talk about the totally irrational reaction many people had to it.


 Everybody knows that jokes are a matter of taste. What I might consider funny, some people would take offence at, but, generally speaking, there's an area of jokes that even kids would consider funny. Also, if we are honest to ourselves, a joke is not funnier or less funnier if from the total of people in the room instead of 2 people not liking it, 5 people don't. Not even if some of them are so offended by the joke they leave the room. The joke is equally funny or in poor taste with 2 or with 100 people in the room.

 And there's the issue of confusing correlation with causation. If I tell somebody some good news about my aunt and the next day that somebody happens to had bought a car, it doesn't mean my good news made that person decide they want to buy a car. It could be, but it's not necessary, it could be a coincidence.

 The same happens in the sad case of the nurse. She decided to take her life, as far as it seems. But that's the extent to which we know anything about the situation. We don't know if the suicide had anything to do with the prank or not. Just the fact that it happened the next day doesn't mean AT ALL the prank call is the cause of the suicide. It doesn't even mean that is "the straw that broke the camel's back", it might be totally unrelated. Or it might not. Taking into account the inconsequential and harmless nature of the call, it seems even less likely. Yet, I might be mistaken.

 What I am sure of now is that jumping to the conclusion that the prank call had anything to do with the death, is wrong, as it is jumping to the opposing conclusion. I am also sure that in the absence of other information, the latter, the lack of connection, is more likely, because we know that such drastic sad decisions are not generally caused by trivial stuff.

 Time proximity doesn't prove causation. Geographical proximity doesn't either. There needs to be a lot more into it than simple temporal sequence.



 Which gets me to the second part of irrational reactions: terminating the show and twitter accounts of the two pranksters. What the hell? Talk about hypersensitivity and paranoid reactions! Are we this blind and willing to blame the least insignificant thing for the gravest consequences that we forget how we all make decisions and how to use our brains, as soon as some tragedy happens?

Australian Prime-minister Julia Gillard making fun of doomsday believers

 Imagine some person who thinks the 21st of December 2012 will bring the end of the earth. Imagine that person taking as a serious declaration the obvious joke from the Australian prime-minister Julia Gillard, and would end their lives to avoid the mayhem, panic and violence they think would follow the 21st of December. I wonder, would as many people blame Julia Gillard for the suicide? I doubt it. And the irony is that for such an hypothetical case, there would be a stronger case for causation than what we now know about the previous case.


 I still wonder,  when will we learn to think a little more rationally than the people walking the Earth 100.000 years ago?

Zenyth Pharmaceuticals cannot face(book) critics, so they cleanse them

A few days ago I wrote an article about the lawsuit the producers of ColonHelp are trying against Wordpress in the attempt to silence a blogger who wrote some unfavourable and science-based articles on his blog.

Meanwhile Petter Reinholdtsen (who seems to be a fellow skeptic, hi!) sent further this information via his blog, but on another front, I found out the German skeptics tried to contact Zenyth Phamaceuticals on Facebook and asked them why did they use lawyers for threats against critics, instead of using words and thorough scientific studies to talk to the critics.

The people at Zenyth Pharmaceuticals probably wanted to show they do not only use lawyers, but they can be very proficient at using the 'Delete' function of Facebook, so they did just that, it seems.

This really motivates me to go ahead and translate the article Zenyth's money didn't translate, the one that shows their entire case is baseless.

A shitstorm is comming

It has been brought to my attention that a company selling some so-called colon cleansing product wanted to threat with a law suit a Romanian skeptical blogger because he wrote some articles showing that any such products (the one produced by the said company is the most known/popular in Romania) are pure quackery and there is no scientific basis for the claim they make in order to promote their products.

In his articles he also explained how, in fact, the mucoid plaque, the thing that supposedly proves the efficiency of the product, it is a result of taking the product due to its ingredients, and how no such mucoid plaque was ever observed in any colonoscopy, colon surgery or any other situation where you'd expect it to be seen. He also quoted specialists and lots of other scientific references, showing an honest approach to the issue.

As a response to the initial take-down message from the company doing business with people's crap, the blogger said would like to see scientific proof for the claims made for the product, and when that was to happen, he would take down the articles and publish a correction.

The company decided that the best way to continue this was to try to make a legal threat and ask 100.000 euros (one hundred thousands Euros) as damage in a country where, according to the latest data from the National Statistics Institute, the total average monthly personal income is about 180 Euros.

The blogger, as a reply, decided the threat should be made public and wrote another article which probably made the company very unhappy, because they decided to sue Wordpress so they would take down the blog.

And that's exactly what they did, they sued Wordpress, and sent some documents to Wordpress who sent them to the blogger. Among the documents there were 4 pdf files containing each an original article (in Romanian) from the blog and only 3 pdf containg English translation for only 3 of them. The one missing was the one where the blogger himself showed there wasn't any legal basis for the threats they made initially against him.

Here are the translations (ironically, made on the company's own expense):

Initial article entitled "ColonHelp doesn't help the colon. But it empties your wallet!" (original here)
Initial Article.en



The second article entitled "Again about ColonHelp and intestinal cleansers" (original here)
Follow Up.en



** Missing translation of the first reply to threats (original Romanian text here)



The second article about the threats entitled "People who clean the colon have filled the fan with shit" (original here)
Threats 2


The Romanian blogger explains himself more of the details on this issue in his latest article on his blog.

The company is called Zenyth Pharmaceuticals and Wordpress will probably lose the lawsuit by not presenting themselves in any way in the Romanian courts, but I think some Streisand effect would really help the asses of this company to get them kicked in their rightful place, at the top of the hall of shame.

The product name is called ColonHelp.

Please spread this information as wide as possible.
Do NOT link to the company's site (it would raise its search engine rank), but link to the blogger' article or the translations.


If any Romanian speaker cares to translate the untranslated article and publish it somewhere on the web, I would be more than glad to update this article and add a link to that translation.

Why a lack of skepticism is dangerous...

Some of my Romanian readers might know that for the last two years I've got involved in the skeptical movement to such a degree that I am a co-producer of a bi-weekly podcast on science and skepticism (in Romanian) called „Skeptics in Romania”. Some might even be regular listeners of the show.

(There isn't much to see now visually on the site, but me and the other people behind the project have some ongoing plans to change that.)

In spite of our modest site, up until now we had some successes, one of them being the publication of an article on us in a known Romanian printed publication and another being the invitation to a live show face to face with Oreste Teodorescu, a well known Romanian mysticist and woo promoter.

During that live show we managed to show a demonstration (video below, in Romanian) of how astrology gives the impression of working, without actually working, and, taking into account we had no prior TV camera experience and that it was a live show, I think we managed an honourable presence.

We also have a series of interviews in English with some really interesting people: Dr. Eugenie Scott, Prof. Christopher French, Prof. Edzard Ernst, Samantha Stein and others. We did these interviews at Denkfest 2011, in Zurich, and we integrated the translated (voice over) interviews in our podcast. The conlusion is that most of our activities revolve around the podcast, so let me tell you more about that.

The podcast has a somewhat fixed structure, it starts with a conversation between ourselves, then we have a segment on the history of science, technology, skepticism and woo, and then we have a segment called „The dangers of not being skeptical”. In this segment we present cases of people who lost their lives, their health, their money or any combination of the former because they were duped into some scam, science-y sounding non-science, unfounded claim or some other woo.

Having lost recently my brother-in-law to a form of cancer known as Hodgkin lymphoma, I became especially sensitive about miracle-cure claims for cancer, and this section of the show has lately seen its fair share of such cases. Honestly, if there could be a way to prosecute the irresponsible, ignorant and/or cynical people promoting all sorts of quack "therapies", especially for cancer*, I would really like to see it happen. But there isn't, and we're trying the best accessible approach, informing the public.

During my brother-in-law's last two years of his life, he went through lots of chemotherapy and radiotherapy sessions, repeated periods of hospitalisation, and lots of drugs. This is the best of what we currently have for treating and curing most forms of cancer, and too many times this isn't enough. I can't even imagine how stressful and discouraging it must feel when the best of what we have doesn't help.

Here is where the desperation and hopes of patients and their families meet the purely irresponsible cynical or ignorant promoters of woo and quack therapies. Because it takes either an ignorant or a really cynical (I really feel this word isn't enough) person to prey on the suffering of other people to make easy money under the false pretence of offering a cure.

It almost happened to my brother-in-law and his family, because they almost went for some herbal concoction promoted as a cancer cure on some forum, blog or page of a seller of this fake therapy. It was really hard for me to make them understand why using such a product it not advisable, not even in parallel with the medical treatment due its possible counter effect or interactions with the real medical treatment, without them getting the wrong idea that I wasn't trying to help. While trying to be brief and informative not to lose their attention, I told them how "natural" doesn't necessarily mean "good" (uranium, lead and Irukandji's venom are all natural), and how plants are drugs because they all contain chemical  substances (and no, "chemical" does not mean "human made" or "artificial") which could interact with the medical treatment.


But most people don't even have the chance of having close by a person with a more science-leaning thought process and a skeptical mind. Those unfortunate people are the most vulnerable people and constitute the biggest chunk of the victims of baseless pseudo-cures or pseudo-treatments.

On our last show, I presented the case of Yvonne Main, a cancer suffering patient who mistook an invasive carcinoma for a cyst, and irdologist Ruth Nelson for a real healthcare giver.

Yvonne Main, died from an invasive carcinoma
after seeking help from a iridologist,
and delaying real medical treament for 18 months

Yvonne, after seeking medical advice from a person that essentially promotes the dead idea of guessing diseases by looking at the eyes**, used natural treatments for about 18 months and, after all this time, her carcinoma grew to a size of 10 to 11 cm, eating through her skull and causing damage which was later attempted to be countered through bone transplant from her ribs.

Ruth Nelson wasn't prosecuted in any way and continues her practice of quackery unharmed.

This is not the only case, nor even one case from a select few where woo and quackery lead to grave consequences for patients. There are many, many more; they're so many that even after splitting them in categories they seem too many per category, especially when you realise these are only the findings of, essentially, a single man:

http://www.whatstheharm.net/

This is part of what I have been doing in the last few years, instead of working on Debian. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Maybe it's good. I want to know what do you think?


* you will, most likely, never hear such a promoter of non-therapies say that there isn't just one cancer, and that, in fact, „cancer” is a name for a certain family of diseases which are all called „cancer” - that's a first sign that you might be dealing with quack
** probably in the line of thought that „the eyes are the gates to the soul” so they must tell something significant about health