You Wouldn't Get It

The stack of support holding up our broken code is too real! Your janky codebase is somehow balanced on a precarious tower of AI suggestions, desperate Google searches, StackOverflow copy-pasta, that one tutorial from an Indian guy with 240p video quality but god-tier explanations, ancient Git repositories nobody's touched since 2013, and pure dumb luck. The dog (your code) has absolutely no business standing on that wobbly pile, yet somehow it works! Every developer knows that touching ANY part of this fragile ecosystem might send the whole thing crashing down. The compiler isn't impressed, but hey—ship it anyway!

The hardest choices require the strongest wills... and the most questionable git practices. Nothing quite captures the silent horror of development like nuking an entire branch to fix a merge conflict. Sure, you could have spent hours carefully resolving each conflict line by line, but why bother when you can just snap your fingers and make half your codebase disappear? The staging branch was a small price to pay for salvation. Your team might be planning your funeral right now, but hey—the build is passing!

That moment when GitHub Copilot helpfully suggests your private API key that you accidentally committed to a repo six months ago. Nothing like having your $5000/month AWS bill exposed by an AI that's just trying to be helpful. Security through obscurity fails again.

Ah yes, Australia's finest moment - confusing code repositories with dance videos. Apparently, they think kids are forking repos when they should be doing homework. Next up: Stack Overflow classified as gambling because developers keep betting their sanity on finding solutions. The only thing GitHub and TikTok have in common is that both make me stay up until 4AM questioning my life choices.

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.

OH. MY. GOD. The AUDACITY of this person claiming "four years of Git experience" when their entire workflow is clicking buttons in an IDE! 💀 The tragic comedy unfolds in four acts: clicking the branch button, making a change with the most heartfelt commit message ever ("fix this please! Thank you, I love you :)"), typing "fixed" with the eloquence of Shakespeare, and then just... clicking "Commit." THAT'S IT. THAT'S THEIR ENTIRE "GIT EXPERIENCE." Meanwhile, terminal warriors are over here rebasing interactive branches, cherry-picking commits, force-pushing with lease, and writing commit messages that would make your English professor weep tears of joy. But sure, Jan, you're a "Git expert" because you can click a button. I CANNOT EVEN. 🙄