I mean, some of it is an exaggeration and some is true, but painfully obvious.

Not having to go over a network to negotiate a commit with a central server was also incredible. It felt like a rocket ship. Everything was so fast.

That's true (or, was true, until network speed picked up), but really, it's not much more but "network is slow let's work locally". And let's not forget that operations with origin are still slow. It's a good deal, do locally what is done more often, but "incredible" is an exaggeration.

They also speak of branches being terrible before git and how they didn't even do it. I mean, come on... That is probably "I first learned branching when git came" then branches being terrible or anything else.

For example, I always chuckle when people agree how the best merge/PR way is to squash and rebate. My dudes, that's exactly how a branch is merged in TFS source control and IIRC in SVN, too. But git users needed a few years just to "get there".

They also speak about having read/write in SVN, therefore one couldn't work, but having read/write is not mandatory at all, not in SVN and not in other systems, one absolutely did have RBAC even back then.

tl;dr I am old and irritated by minor improvements being presented as revolutions by exploiting people's emotional attachment to things and lack of past knowledge.