Ive almost always seen this acronym in reference to tech billionaires, who tend to have a marked right-wing bent, and as such have generally found that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The fundamental premise of conservative politics is preserving, reinforcing, or even restoring existing or recently damaged hierarchy. As wealthy capitalists, it makes sense, in a selfish way, for them to want that- they are on top of those hierarchies.

The issue is, few if any of the ideological positions listed there are terribly compatible with that goal if they were to actually come to success. They tend to involve alterations to the structure of society in unpredictable ways that almost certainly would shake up traditional structures of power in one manner or another.

For example, take the first thing on that list, transhumanism. The currently existing people most closely resembling the goal of being able to modify one's own body at a substantial level into something considered more desirable to that person, are probably trans people, who the right wing, to include big tech billionaires like Elon Musk, infamously hate. Now, trans people are not the same thing as transhumanists, obviously there is a difference between modifying onself to have traits of an already existing subset of humans, and wishing to have traits outside that of the human species- but if a group of people is violently against such a comparatively small alteration, just because its a bit threatening to their hierarchical idea of gender, I submit to you that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that group would actually accept a person who underwent a significantly more dramatic alteration.

For another example, the last of these, longtermism, definitionally should stand opposed to economic activities that are conducted in an unsustainable manner, given that, well, unsustainable literally means that they cannot be continued over the long term. The capitalist bedrock of the hierarchy these tech people rule over is built upon mountains of unsustainable activity, and rather than attempt to rework it into something more sustainable, they instead have been pushing forward with such things as data centers powered by more carbon-intensive locally installed gas turbines, just because those power sources let them build it a bit faster and easier.

As such, I see two possibilities: either these ideologies simply are misattributed to the people they are being used to criticize, which would make the acronym useless, or, and I think this latter one more likely- the people in question are borrowing the language of these concepts to sound important, make the technology they sell sound more impressive, or to try to sway followers of those positions to their side, without actually having thought the ideas through or behaving in a manner that remotely advances them. In which case, again, the acronym is useless, because it'd be taking a bunch of disparate positions together and associating them with people who demonstrate with their actions that they either do not actually understand or simply do not care about those things.

For an analogy, if someone were to gather a bunch of terms about democracy or republicanism (not the political party) or similar rule-by-the-people ideas, and then were to make an acronym with them for use to describe autocrats, on account of how so many of those autocrats use those words in the name of their regime or in their (claimed) ideals, in order to legitimize their rule and more easily do what they actually wanted to do, would you consider that acronym to be useful?