Yes! We mostly wouldn’t tolerate the complexity and the terrible UX of a tool we use everyday--but there's enough Stockholm Syndrome out there where most of us are willing to tolerate it.
Git may be sharp and unwieldy, but it's also one of the decreasing amount of tools we still use - the trend of turning tools into toys consumed the regular user market and is eating into tech software as well.
Git is NOT that.
Git is something you use to get stuff done, until it becomes an irritating obstacle course of incidental complexity.
To me, it's more like GitHub won; Git came along for the ride.
Back in the day when companies evaluated Git and Mercurial (Facebook, Google, Microsoft), they decided Mercurial was better. Mozilla used Mercurial for a long time until switching to Git fairly recently.
But once GitHub took off and became the center of gravity for developers, it became the de facto standard.
It also explains why there have been several attempts (Sapling, JJ) to use Mercurial's semantics as a front-end for Git.