[Mz]

Point is... original author clearly knew what he was doing with these package names.

That seems very likely, but from what I have read so far, all the evidence is circumstantial and guilt is being inferred. So it is still possible it's a stupid mistake. Seriously. (Perhaps there is damning, definitive evidence out there. But what I have read so far contains no smoking gun.)

[scott_s]

Possible, yes. But so absurdly unlikely that I find it strange to seriously suggest the package maintainer did not know what he was doing.

[Mz]

Possible, yes. But so absurdly unlikely that I find it strange to seriously suggest the package maintainer did not know what he was doing.

There has already been evidence posted here that the woman involved in the project, like me, had some idea it was kind of risque but no idea just how negatively it would be viewed. So far, no one has posted any definitive evidence to the contrary -- it is all circumstantial. And I have repeatedly seen instances of this on HN and in every case, simply politely informing them of how negative it was got them to change it. I think it is far from "absurdly unlikely" that they vastly underestimated how negatively this would be viewed.

[scott_s]

We're talking about two different things. You're referring to the female author of Panyshot, who was a non-native English speaker who did not know the full meaning of "pantyshot". I'm talking about the author of Upskirt who is a native English speaker and changed the name of his package to that of a young anime character famous for upskirt shots.

[brigade]

Maybe I'm desensitized to this in anime, but I wouldn't think of Misaka as being famous for upskirt shots.

[scott_s]

I wouldn't know from first-hand knowledge. I was trusting the article's author on that information.

[Mz]

We're talking about two different things.

I think we are talking about two different things only I would frame it as "I'm talking about assumption of guilt (and how rampant and problematic that is) vs actual proof" and you seem to be talking about probability. Given how this conversation has gone so far, there is probably no point in trying to further clarify my intent or meaning on that point.

Peace.

[scott_s]

I meant we were talking about two different people - I was not talking about the non-native English speaker who clearly did not know the full meaning of the word.

I submit that evidence (I hesitate to use the word "proof" since it can have implications of certainty) is all about probability. You have to weigh the probabilities, always. With the native English speaker, I find that his words on the matter make it overwhelmingly likely that he knew exactly what he was doing. I'm not assuming guilt, I'm concluding guilt.