I feel like they're meant to be jokey about UX failings, but I'm unsure what the author is trying to convey. For example: > [something about history being pre

I feel like they're meant to be jokey about UX failings, but I'm unsure what the author is trying to convey. For example: > [something about history being present and immutable] >“Splendid!” exclaimed the historian. “I have a historical record of a merge commit with two parents. How can I find out which branch each parent was originally made on?” >“History is ephemeral,” replied Master Git, “the knowledge you seek can be answered only by the gods.” the pedantic explanation here is that branches are a separate subsystem, with each branch just being a pointer to a commit. And the history works off of the commit. The answer from "Master Git" doesn't feel like an answer from a master. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but Git becomes way less confusing if you think more about what things are, rather than how they're used .