It Wasn't Me

The eternal struggle of every developer who's been in the trenches long enough. Sure, some folks keep their code private because it's their golden goose—fair enough, capitalism and all that. But some of us? We're just hiding the digital equivalent of duct tape and prayers that somehow passes code review. The real 10x engineers aren't the ones with proprietary algorithms; they're the ones brave enough to let the world see their 3 AM solutions with variable names like 'temp2', 'finalFinalActuallyFinal', and comments that just say 'TODO: fix this garbage later'.

THE AUDACITY! Just when you're about to push that LIFE-CHANGING commit to save humanity, GitHub's rainbow unicorn of doom appears! 🦄 There you are, frantically refreshing like it'll magically fix itself, as if the unicorn will gallop away if you click hard enough. And that "contact us if the problem persists" suggestion? PLEASE! As if we're not going to try refreshing 47 more times before even CONSIDERING that option! The unicorn might as well be saying "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" while sipping tea and judging your life choices. Meanwhile, your deadline approaches and your will to live decreases with every rainbow-colored second!

Nothing strikes fear into a developer's heart quite like asking colleagues to review code. The bear in this meme represents that senior dev who's been "too busy" to look at your PR for two weeks straight. The title "LGTM" (Looks Good To Me) is the holy grail response we all want but rarely get without 47 nitpicky comments about your variable naming conventions. The survival strategy works both in forests and open office plans - just ask someone who wants to avoid you to do something for you, and watch them magically disappear faster than documentation during a deadline crunch.

The classic programmer amnesia syndrome in full display! Nothing quite like the journey from "this code is garbage" to "oh wait, I wrote this masterpiece" in 0.5 seconds flat. That moment of horrified judgment—complaining about global variables and try-catch blocks spanning miles—only to realize you're critiquing your own digital fingerprints. The cognitive dissonance of immediately pivoting to "actually, the logic isn't that bad" is pure self-preservation at work. It's like finding an old diary entry and thinking "who wrote this nonsense?" before recognizing your own handwriting. The mental gymnastics we perform to protect our fragile programmer egos deserve an Olympic medal.

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."

The D&D alignment chart for Git branch naming conventions is painfully accurate. Your team's choice reveals everything about your codebase's true nature. Calling it "main" means you follow best practices and probably have documentation. "Stable" folks are pragmatic but boring. Meanwhile, "rolling" users are one failed test away from disaster but somehow it always works. The chaotic evil "mommy" branch? That's the team that also has a "daddy" branch for hotfixes and wonders why HR keeps calling them.