Git being better than predecessors, while still being really hard to use is not a contradiction.
In other words, there's still a big step forward needed. Do you disagree with some of the points in the post?
Specifically there are systems which are complicated because they are too complex and others which are complicated because they are too simple (a few simple ideas combine in ways that can get complex, people get confused because they don't see how the simple ideas are related to much more complex compositions of those ideas.) Git is fundamentally the latter.
To explain, Linus Torvalds created git in a very short time when they lost the license for the version control system they were using before. Linus was able to develop such a scalable system very quickly because it is based on simple ideas that are very similar to the ideas used in blockchains.
It has the appearance that it is complex because it has accreted many layers on top of that very simple conceptual core.
Some of the things that git critics universal complain are complex, such as the index, staging, etc. are keys to git's success. Because of that I have very little fear of screwing up. With other tools I would manually replicate that functionality by copying files when I was afraid of screwing up and probably screw up doing that. It is a small burden on the contributor but it relieves a large burden on the maintainer of the system who is not always cleaning up messes.
I find Git simple because I have a cookbook I work from. A better UI would put that cookbook on your fingertips. Look at the Github UI... A UI like that to make changes in a CVS repository would be like science fiction. Trouble integrating version control has been a persistent problem with "business rules engines" and other kinds of tools and Git makes it possible to make a simple interface to say, edit a Wiki that is managed in Git.
Staging is a feature I've never really understood the point of (why stage when I can commit by hunk instead?), but if it works for your workflow, great. Clearly it worked for the creators of Git.
The magic of Git (and other DVCS) compared to CVS and its ilk is the DAG and reasonable conflict resolution on merge/rebase/cherry-pick. Everything else is window dressing.
I met an engineer or two that were always feeling like walking on eggshells around git, and every once and a while having to call in the expert to fix their git state, so they get unstuck.