What irks me about it is that they can't even agree on simple things like should it have one command e.g. checkout for multiple things, or should it be separated to multiple (switch, restore, checkout).
They can't agree are they making a tool for idiots or developers so they go from one end (reset) to another(restore).
So users end up with an entangled mess of a overlapping yet not fully covering commands.
Then comes the so-called "expert" saying:

git is the shape it is for very good reasons, and we wouldn't, for example, try and dumb down a milling machine or a lathe because they're hard to use

Yet they don't ask themself why do new users think it has too steep learning curve, or an entry barrier.
So calling it "expert" tool is mockery by my standard. (If not obvious I agree with Mira Welner, git is critically overdue for good command clean-up before there can be talk about experts)

Maybe if newcomers had clear image of how git is supposed to work with clean easily explainable set of commands, larger percentage would stay on the wagon, just saying.