Correcting Gizmodo

John McAfee says the Ashley Madison hack was an inside job, and the folks at have to play social justice warrior:

If we take McAfee and his experience at his word, the inside job case seems more than a little plausible. The idea that a woman did this, on the other had, because “only women call men scumbags and men hate Valentine’s Day,” is bonkers—not to mention downright offensive. Welcome to the mind of John McAfee.

- Adam Clark Estes

No, idiot, this is what sane investigators do. As an investigator you have limited funds, and a particular amount of time in which to get the job done. It is imminently reasonable to try to guess the gender of the insider and go after them, rather than set up a gender-blind operation and figure out who the insider is after she's on the beach in a country that won't extradite her.

Not only that, but Estes should have done a little bit of googling:

McAfee is saying he can discern someone’s gender just by the way they write?

I did a little googling. I found the GenderGuesser:

In 2003, a team of researchers from the Illinois Institute of Technology and Bar-Ilan University in Israel (Shlomo Argamon, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine, and Anat Rachel Shimoni) developed a method to estimate gender from word usage. Their paper described a Bayesian network where weighted word frequencies and parts of speech could be used to estimate the gender of an author. Their approach made a distinction between fiction and non-fiction writing styles.

So, in about two seconds, I found out McAfee is backed by science.

Gizmodo can't bring research, journalism, nor can they bring themselves to think like an investigator, but instead they bring the insults, the snark, the sarcasm, and dog whistles.