[recursive]

If the "right" solution is more difficult, and no more effective than fucking this noise, then in what sense is it even desirable or good to use the "right" solution? How is it more right?

I think the nuclear option is pretty nice, since it solves every git problem I've ever heard of. All the "right" solutions only solve some particular slice of cases. Why should I be bothered to care?

[dahart]

Totally depends on the situation, but it's uncommon for nuke to be easier and more effective than fixing things using a rebase. Specifically, all of the examples in the blog post are easier to solve with the right git command than they are with a nuke & re-clone.

There's a class of bad situations that nuke will make worse and not better. Any time you have un-pushed work, you're better off figuring out how to restore it with proper git commands than by nuking your repo. Dropped stashes or screwed up merges or rebase mistakes are all things that take some unavoidable time to learn how to fix.