Do You Even Remember How To Code

Nothing says "I'm here to help" like a junior dev submitting a PR that rewrites half the codebase before their first cup of office coffee. The message "init cursor" is the digital equivalent of "I fixed it" while the server room is on fire. Those 8,214 new files? Just dependency hell with a bow on top. Senior devs are already updating their resumes.

Someone just discovered that Git's developers have a bizarre obsession with bathroom fixtures. The "porcelain" commands are the clean, user-friendly ones you're supposed to touch, while the "plumbing" commands work behind the scenes where things get messy. This StackOverflow gem has been viewed 143k times because apparently thousands of developers were silently wondering why their version control system was named after toilet parts. Imagine trying to explain to non-tech people: "Yeah, I'm having issues with Git porcelain today" and watching their concerned faces. The real question is what other bathroom-inspired terminology we're missing. Git flush? Git unclog? The possibilities are terrifyingly endless.

Ah, Git. The tool we all praise in public and curse in private. The first panel is that classic tech presentation where someone's overselling Git with buzzwords like "distributed graph theory tree model" – as if that helps anyone understand it. Then comes the brutal truth bomb: nobody actually understands Git. We just memorize arcane incantations, pray they work, and when they inevitably fail, we resort to the time-honored tradition of nuking the repo and starting fresh. Twenty years in the industry and I still sometimes find myself thinking "git add, git commit, git push" and if that doesn't work... well, there's always rm -rf and clone again. Some tools you use; Git uses you.

The eternal ritual of the programmer: commanding the current side project to remain silent while being seduced by the siren call of a shiny new idea. That dopamine hit from starting something fresh is just *chef's kiss* - while your half-finished projects collect digital dust in that special GitHub folder we never speak of. The cemetery of "I'll get back to this later" grows another tombstone.

The GitHub contribution graph: where your self-worth as a developer gets reduced to little green squares. We've got "Just a Developer" with their random sprinkles of productivity, "The Weekender" who only codes when normal people are partying, and "The Unrealistic Expectations" who apparently never sleeps, eats, or touches grass. Don't forget "Getting Ready to Search for a New Job" with that sudden burst of activity right before updating the resume. The "GitHub Wizard" trying to look consistently productive, "The Mondrian" creating actual art with their commits, and "The Cupid Shuffle" forming little hearts because... why code efficiently when you can make your contribution graph look pretty? Remember kids, quantity of commits ≠ quality of code. But try telling that to recruiters who think your GitHub activity is a personality test.

Social etiquette has rules: don't ask women their age or men their salary. But the REAL taboo? Asking developers to explain their commit messages. "Fixed stuff" could mean anything from a minor CSS tweak to preventing the entire codebase from imploding. "Minor changes" might have rewritten the authentication system. And that cryptic "WIP" from 2019? It's now load-bearing code nobody dares to touch. The commit history is less documentation and more of a psychological thriller where "refactoring" is code for "I broke everything and fixed it before anyone noticed."