I must admit I'm a little bit confused. It opens with a discussion that people find Git hard to use, and a statement that these problems are likely more than skin-deep but then goes on to describe a wrapper around Git which is mostly a bunch of aliases. Don't get me wrong, I'm know that many people do find Git hard-to-use, but I don't see anything in the eventual project implementation which backs up the original claim that the problems are conceptual. I don't think it's possible to fix conceptual problems in a tool by just wrapping it.
I have heard people complain about the staging concept (personally I find it useful, because you can do 'git add -p' which allows you to craft intermediate commits or to-be-squashed fixup commits after you've finished some development), so it's removal in this tool is unsurprising. And it is nice to auto-stash on branch change (though personally I think that they should've made stashing a much better-supported concept in their Git wrapper -- I've never really liked how stashing was implemented in Git).
I do really like that they appear to have worked hard to remove all of the super-scary warnings that Git likes to spit out. As someone who has taught high-school students how to use Git (among other things), I've learned that the easiest way to scare away people from your project is to have bright-red warnings in response to a user doing something. Most students describe it as though the computer is effectively screaming at them. Some tools over-compensate for this is and spew emoji in response to user input, so I'm happy this tool has struck the right balance.