Calling Git sane just makes it clear that you haven't used a sane source management system.
Git has no file object, it versions the repo, not files. There is one graph for all files, the repo graph. So the common ancester for a 3 way diff is the repo GCA, which could very well be miles away from the file GCA if you have a graph per file (like BitKeeper does).
No file object means no create event recorded, no rename event recorded, no delete event recorded. If you ask for the diffs on "src/foo.c" all Git can do is look at each commit and see if "src/foo.c" was modified in that commit. That's insanely slow in a big repo. And it completely ignores the fact that src/foo.c got moved to src/libc/foo.c years ago and there is a different src/foo.c that is completely unrelated. There is an option to try and intuit the renames when you are spitting out diffs but noone uses that because it's even more insanely slow.
Git is basically a tarball server. Calling that a source management system is an enormous stretch. Calling it a sane and powerful source control tool is just not supported by the facts, calling "the most ..." is laughable.
Yeah, I get it, Git won. You all lost out on "the most sane and powerful" as a result. Which sort of doesn't matter since everyone thinks GitHub is source management.