My dude it's not hubris. Git is pretty damn simple compared to many problems you will have to reason about as a software engineer. If you can't understand file versioning, branching and merging then you aren't going to be able to think effectively about much more complicated problems.

If you think it's simple you don't really know it.

It's not that the supposed concepts that are hard, it's that it has one of the messiest interfaces and set of documentation ever devised for a software.

And there are hardly any settled concepts, the terms it used came to be as it was developed, and can have different definitions in different parts of the documentation.

If you consider it simple I'm very seriously concerned about your software engineering output

If git was aimed at regular peope I'd agree it's not well designed. It's not. It's a tool for software engineers to do a job. It is not flawless. But it was massive improvement over the code management tools that were in use before it and I haven't encountered a replacement I prefer.

A lot of the problems people have with git are actually problems with bad workflows. You can argue that git should support arbitrary workflows but that's like arguing a garbage truck should support offroading.

Nope

Software engineers benefit from good tools as well, and having to spend months to get to know a vcs well enough doesn't benefit anyone

Would would be the one good git workflow, in your opinion?