The Nuclear Option For Git Problems

OH. MY. GOD. The absolute AUDACITY of this code reviewer demanding "Assembly support" on a PR, only to get the most eloquent two-word response in programming history! 💀 And then the author just MERGES IT ANYWAY! That's the digital equivalent of flipping someone off, driving away in their Ferrari, and throwing confetti out the window. The 556 thumbs up vs. the reviewer's measly 9 is just *chef's kiss* perfection. For the uninitiated, "LGTM" stands for "Looks Good To Me" - the irony here is just... *dramatic sigh* ...exquisite.

The Indiana Jones of software development! Carefully eyeing that golden idol of "existing code" like it's a sacred relic, only to swap it with your "new commit" and trigger the boulder of doom—the linter. That moment when you think you've perfectly calculated the weight of your code replacement, but forgot about those pesky tabs vs spaces arguments. Now you're sprinting through the codebase with angry code reviewers throwing spears at your PR. Should've read the tribe's ancient documentation first!

Designers will fight to the death over who thought of rounded corners first. Programmers? We've all copy-pasted from Stack Overflow so much that code ownership is basically a philosophical debate at this point. And GitHub users have evolved past shame entirely—stealing code isn't theft, it's "collaboration" and "open source contribution." Fork it, slap your name on the README, call it a day. The real power move is when someone forks your repo, makes zero changes, and somehow gets more stars than you.

When your team enforces squash-only merge policies, every single commit in your feature branch gets obliterated into one bland, generic message. All those carefully crafted commit messages documenting your thought process? Gone. That commit where you finally fixed the bug at 3 AM? Erased from history. The one where you admitted "I have no idea why this works"? Vanished. Sure, it keeps the main branch "clean," but at what cost? Your entire development journey compressed into "feat: implemented user authentication" while the git history becomes as emotionally sterile as a corporate mission statement. Roy Batty would understand—he's seen things you people wouldn't believe, just like your commit history that nobody will ever see again.

The duality of modern developers: initially impressed by shiny new AI features, followed immediately by the desperate search for the "off" button. GitHub Copilot might finish your code, but it also finishes your patience when it confidently suggests the wrong solution for the fifth time in a row. The real 10x developer move isn't using AI—it's knowing exactly when to turn it off.

Junior devs with unrestricted server access and zero version control knowledge are basically walking disasters with commit privileges. It's like handing a toddler a flamethrower and saying "try not to burn down the data center!" Their confidence is inversely proportional to their Git knowledge, making them the most dangerous entities in the tech ecosystem. One wrong move and suddenly production is running on a single file called "final_version_ACTUALLY_FINAL_v2_USE_THIS_ONE.js"