That's probably why it's the main reason git people hate hg and hg people are confused about git, until they really mess up, and outside people view hg as much more limited than git.
I don't really have a side in any metaphorical battle because I've had to set up CI/CD for a mix of git and mercurial, but simply giving in to the social pressure of the tech world I've become more acquainted with git over time than with hg as a junior and I can see value in both.
However at a higher level (organization level especially), it's critically important to look at the trade-off that the choice gives you.
I'm trying to be objective here in saying that unless mercurial gains more traction in the world, fortunately or unfortunately you should stick heavily with git.
But that's coming from me, who doesn't understand how Mercurial is supposed to be used. I felt happy when BitBucket announced they were sunsetting Mercurial, because of the miserable experience I had with that one single time and the fact that it would mean that all of the repository owners who forced you to learn Mercurial to contribute to their code would have no choice but to switch their repos to Git. But because I don't know any better I guess I don't understand what was being lost fully by losing Mercurial.