I think the "toxic" tyrant has an agenda unrelated to the company performance, stemming from their lack of self confidence mixed with a lack of empathy. They overcompensate by seeking praise from those they perceive as weak, and sabotage those they see as treats.
When I find someone a bit aggressive or overbearing professionally, I try to observe how they behave outside of their job. If they're moderate and respectful, they are usually just very focused people, and probably good allies with the proper boundaries and communication.
If the behavior happens outside work as well, I'll just assume they're a lost cause and kill them with neutrality. Never let them bother me but never give them credit either, be extra zealous when they send me on a wild goose chase, until they get bored and latch onto someone else. Oh and raise my eyebrows before agreeing with them.
I don't think writing colorful rants at core committers who unapologetically do the one thing he tells them not to - break userspace - really qualifies him as a tyrant.
I'd honestly love a boss who only blows up over things he's warned me about many times and are under my control.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
All successful projects of sufficient size probably need a tyrant at the top someplace who can and will make final decisions and enforce them, otherwise everything falls apart in conflicting requirements and bike-shedding.
Ahh, you might reply, but these are "toxic" tyrants, a phrase this article never bothers to define, allowing everyone to just project their own vision of a bad boss onto it.