Why, then, not commit every keystroke? After all, you're losing history every time someone types backspace.
I imagine the reason that seems absurd is that you don't consider all the false steps and reworking that go on while a commit is crafted to be part of its official meaning. The working set is malleable until it's ready, and then you commit it. Well, private branches as pilif describes them are malleable in just this way. In both cases, you work your code like clay until it's ready to be presented and then bake it in to the public history.
I strongly dispute the assertion that a private clone is malleable in the way you're describing. I consider all history important enough to be committed to be "public" history. But (apparently unlike folks who are fast with their downvote buttons) I certainly acknowledge that it is a matter of taste.
I consider all history important enough to be committed to be "public" history
This argument seems to me to boil down to an attachment to a single meaning (the traditional one) of the word "commit".
p.s. Instead of complaining about being downvoted, it would be better to make your tone less aggressive in the first place. None of your other comments made it clear that you regard this as taste; actually quite the opposite.
I imagine the reason that seems absurd is that you don't consider all the false steps and reworking that go on while a commit is crafted to be part of its official meaning. The working set is malleable until it's ready, and then you commit it. Well, private branches as pilif describes them are malleable in just this way. In both cases, you work your code like clay until it's ready to be presented and then bake it in to the public history.