A complementary virtue is that the commit is tightly scoped to exactly one change. I still see most engineers commit whatever they had in their working director

A complementary virtue is that the commit is tightly scoped to exactly one change. I still see most engineers commit whatever they had in their working directory as a sort of blanket Save Point, without any thought to how those changes can be captured as individual commits that can be commented and reviewed on their own merits. This will typically also involve completely unnecessary changes, because when you're merging unrelated changes anyway, the unnecessary ones are swept up in the noise. At best they complicate rebases for other contributors, but too often they also cause outright regressions. It goes without saying that the commit messages are a write-off at this point, because even if they felt motivated to take the time to comment it clearly, the change is so messy and nebulous that it becomes hard to comment on. If their code gets reviewed it's more likely the reviewer gives up and stamps it so they no longer have to look at it. Most people still don't seem to know that `git add -p`, `git reset HEAD`, `git stash`, `git rebase --interactive`, etc. are even available. They never learn what git is capable of, so they act like version control is a bureaucratic obligation rather than the peerless superpower that it can be. The problems they cause don't end at their terminal though, because now they've made a mess of the repository for every other contributor as well.