The Average Git Rebase Experience

The future of accountability in the AI coding era. Run git blame all you want, but Copilot leaves no fingerprints at the scene of the crime. Just you, staring at suspicious code that writes itself, wondering if you'll ever need to remember how semicolons work again.

The telltale signs of AI assistance in your codebase are always there if you know where to look. Someone claims "Claude has been here," and the evidence? That cursed FINAL_SUMMARY.md file sitting in your repo root. It's like finding footprints in the snow - AI assistants and their weird habit of generating summary files nobody asked for. Eight PRs later and you're still finding random markdown files with perfect documentation that nobody on your team is skilled enough to have written.

The cosmic horror of being assigned as a code reviewer for a 208-file pull request with +114,948 lines added and -1,130 lines removed. The giant, menacing figure represents the monstrous PR towering over the poor developer who's been summoned to review this abomination. That's not a codebase change—that's a whole new dimension of pain being introduced into your repository! The "And It Is Only Monday" title perfectly captures that sinking feeling when your week starts with what can only be described as a code war crime. Whoever submitted this PR clearly doesn't believe in atomic commits or the concept of human mercy.

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.

Nothing says "I'm from a different era of computing" like sending a PDF of a printout instead of a Git repo link. That senior dev probably still has a drawer full of floppy disks "just in case." Next they'll tell you to compile it by feeding the paper into your CD drive and typing "make oldschool." The digital equivalent of getting directions via fax machine when you asked for GPS coordinates.

Oh. My. GOD. The absolute AUDACITY of developers creating fake test data that's so outrageously unrealistic! 🙄 You know you've reached peak developer desperation when you're creating fictional 150-year-old users just to avoid those pesky validation errors! Heaven forbid we use NORMAL birth dates like June 1, 1970! No no no, we need someone born during the CIVIL WAR because that's TOTALLY inconspicuous in our database! The silent agreement among developers to create these ancient test users is the industry's darkest secret. It's like we're all running underground retirement homes for digital vampires born in 1873. DRAMATIC GASP!