It's entirely irrelevant that the founder of some project/company is some {INSERT_GROUP_HERE}. Unless the founder makes it relevant, which is usually a sign th

It's entirely irrelevant that the founder of some project/company is some {INSERT_GROUP_HERE}. Unless the founder makes it relevant, which is usually a sign that they're going to be a problem. This founder appears to have every intention of being a problem. Quotes, from clicking the link at the beginning of the article to Twitter (https://twitter.com/__tux https://twitter.com/__tux) to the first pinned tweet/conversation (https://twitter.com/__tux/status/1478468678563905543?cxt=HHwWjoC-1cHbyYQpAAAA https://twitter.com/__tux/status/1478468678563905543?cxt=HHw...): "... we're literally replacing you - tradtech is bound to lose. If you're trans/gnc, quit your tradtech job and come thru." "I don't desire equal playing ground in the tradtech world - I want to destitute the entire fucking thing. Queer means attack. ..." TechCrunch writing a headline that says nothing about the project while emphasizing things that aren't supposed to matter says everything we need to know about their editorial standards/integrity, too; if someone not in some "special" identity group wrote similarly to the founder it'd be fire and brimstone. In short this is a political piece and not really fit for HN.