This is funny because in PR oriented development I started treating commits in the same way as "save" in IDE,

it's just backup of current state with irrelevant commit message. Everything is described at the end of the work in PR's description and squash merged.

But then you can't use blame to look at the current code state. And it also becomes a nightmare to revert your changes.

Giant PRs that are squashed into one commit are an anti-pattern. Every commit should contain exactly one logical change AND a descriptive commit message.

Unfortunately a good chunk of the industry doesn't have the discipline to do this.

If you have ever worked in a project where there was discipline around committing, you know there is lots of value in doing so (rebasing becomes easier, you unlock the power of bisect, log is actually useful).

This!

Also doing PR code review is soo much nicer if each commit is logically self contained with a nice commit message.

when i started out with git i made an alias to immediately do "git add . && git commit -m 'lazy' && git push" to make it easy to always save my work and ensure its on the server too. git pull is easy enough to remember + type, but i could imagine just calling it update

I would imagine git save is commit, and update is pull?

I think they just want to replace some of the words with alternatives that they prefer. Because at some point someone is going to winge that update should be syncronise and not pull, and save should be push and therefore git is the worst.