Exec Crunchie Nomination Rap and PG Making it Rain

I know a lot of gay people in the tech community in both SF and NYC (and at MIT). Not many lesbians, but that's due to lack of women overall (and they are probably well represented in the overall small number of female engineers).

A surprisingly large number of transgendered people. My first contact with a transgendered person was finding out the ~40 year old female IRCop on EFnet who was married to a woman was originally a man. Really confusing for a 13yo, but it was great to first encounter someone that different from me in a safe setting where I already respected that person's technical competence and general reasonableness.

It's kind of funny that in the military, where the whole LGBT rights thing was a big issue, one of the biggest predictors of "would you be ok with LGBT openly serving" was "did you know someone who was LGBT and a good soldier otherwise" -- if the first gay person you met was some horrible example of humanity independent of being gay, it was pretty easy to assume all gay people would be like that. If the first one was a great soldier (like 1LT Dan Choi), you'd be more likely to support gay soldiers as a class.

I think part of the problem with it is that most LGBT people are basically invisible about sexuality in their work settings -- which is awesome. I don't want to know about coworkers who have weird fetishes for objects, or blondes, or whatever. If it comes up in the context of "oh, I can work late, my husband will take the kids..", that's a great way to learn a coworker is gay. It isn't something you need to hide, but in a work setting, there's no reason to flaunt any traits unrelated to work.

Hardcore nationalist = you must display flag. Anyone who follows US flag code (military, older people, etc.) just believes "no obligation to use the flag, and in fact it's way overused, but if you're going to display it, do it in a respectful way".

I hate people with flags/ribbons/etc. on their cars, generally.

javascript-dependent. the whole point of anigifs is pretty much opposed to that.

There's no way I would've made it through the whole video if it wasn't for the promise of PG making it rain. OP did deliver.

We have no issues answering your questions:

> As someone who doesn't know what you do or who this is

We are very hesitant to associate ourselves or our core business with the Rich Kid$ of Twitter service we have created on the side. This is not because we are intentionally trying to be "shady" or anything. It is because we feel being associated with this service (which we rightfully admit is silly) will hurt us professionally with our core business. Although this service may prove successful in helping us raise funds, we feel it may do us a disservice when it comes to being taken seriously by potential investors/clients.

> The home and about pages both need a lot of work

We wanted to keep those pages rather clean and simple. Clicking the "i" button at the top right explains what the core business is and isn't fairly well.

> From what I can see your service lets me give money to someone in a 'fun' way but you guys get a %?

This is actually not the case. No money is actually transferred to the other user. This is more or less a platform for us to fundraise money for our core business Again, this is explained clearly in the info section exposed by the "i" button.

---

I'll conclude with this, if you don't understand the culture around "making it rain" and the attitudes demonstrated by those that take part in that culture, it is hard to understand this service.