Whether or not you are genuinely naïve about the terms connotations, I suspect there is a perception that you are trolling. This is in part because the original author of the package expressed the same kind of (artificial) shock when people expressed their concern over the name and responded in a very passive aggressive manner.
No, I'm genuinely naive in that regard. I got married young and raised two special needs kids who needed all my time. So for many years, if it wasn't appropriate viewing for a small child, I was not exposed to it. And that's exactly my point: I'm fairly well read and had no idea this was something that would be interpreted this negatively. So perhaps the authors didn't either. And when you start a conversation with something that amounts to a personal attack/assumption of guilt, it is very normal to get defensive reactions which you might not have gotten had you simply inquired "Do you know how bad this sounds?" In cases on HN where someone used very offensive terms, I did exactly that -- asked what their understanding of the term was or quoted a dictionary -- and in every case they honestly had no idea and promptly changed it without any argument.
Peace.
The original author, when challenged, renamed the package to 'Misaka', an Anime character portrayed as an 11-year old who is often depicted graphically from an upskirt angle (its all pretty unsavory, frankly).
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.)
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.
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.
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.