Whatareyougonnado

So Linus Torvalds just casually merged a branch called 'antigravity' where he used Google's AI to fix his visualization tool, and then—PLOT TWIST—had to manually undo everything the AI suggested because it was absolutely terrible. The man literally wrote "Is this much better than I could do by hand? Sure is." with the energy of someone who just spent three hours fixing what AI broke in three seconds. The irony is CHEF'S KISS: the creator of Linux and Git, arguably one of the most brilliant minds in open source, got bamboozled by an AI tool that was "generated with help from google, but of the normal kind" (translation: the AI was confidently wrong as usual). He ended up implementing a custom RectangleSelector because apparently AI thinks "builtin rectangle select" is a good solution when it absolutely is NOT. The title sarcastically suggests Linus doesn't know AI is useless, but honey, he CLEARLY knows. He just documented it for posterity in the most passive-aggressive commit message ever. Nothing says "AI is revolutionary" quite like manually rewriting everything it touched.

You start with a simple task: "Just change these two lines." Seems harmless, right? Then you hit save and suddenly your IDE explodes with notifications. 20 files changed. 73 insertions. 272 deletions. Your stomach drops faster than production servers during a demo. That "LLM" at the bottom isn't referring to large language models—it's the sound of your soul leaving your body. And now you get to spend the rest of your day figuring out which dependency you just nuked because someone thought tight coupling was a great architectural pattern. Welcome to software development, where "just a small fix" is the biggest lie since "the code is self-documenting."

When someone questions your sanity for having 229 commits and 213 additions on master, but you're just sitting there knowing you're not the crazy one. It's everyone else who's insane for not committing directly to master with reckless abandon. The cat's defensive posture perfectly captures that moment when you have to explain your workflow choices to the team. Feature branches? Pull requests? Code review? Those are for people who don't live dangerously. You've transcended such mortal concerns and achieved enlightenment through chaos. The git stats in the terminal just add that extra layer of "yeah, I did that" energy. 229 commits straight to production because you're built different.

Sometimes you're not revolutionary, just disorganized. That company with a single massive repo wasn't practicing "advanced DevOps strategy" - they just never figured out how to separate concerns. Now tech bros are calling it "monorepo architecture" and writing Medium articles about it. Congratulations, your technical debt just became a LinkedIn certification.

Future managers surrounded by AI robots, desperately hunting down poor Devin who pushed that production bug? Welcome to the dystopian future where git blame has evolved beyond finding the commit author—it now deploys an army of robots to hunt you down. The irony is palpable. We've created AI sophisticated enough to replace workers, yet management still needs to find a human scapegoat. Some traditions never die, even in 2030. Pro tip: Always commit under your coworker's name when pushing questionable code. Future survival depends on it.

The moment of horrifying realization when you mock someone else's terrible code only to discover you wrote it six months ago. That slow transition from smug superiority to existential crisis hits differently when Git blame points back at your own username. Nothing quite like the taste of your own spaghetti code to humble you before lunchtime.