That’s not an indiscriminate hierarchy.

Grouping data by user is common and normal in computing: /home laid precedent decades ago.

Project directories are an extremely common grouping within a user’s work sets. Yeah, some of us just dump random files in $HOME, but this is still a sensible tier two path component.

The choice to make ‘view metadata-wrapped content in browser HTML output’ the default rather than ‘view raw file contents’ the default is legitimate for their usage. One could argue that using custom http headers would be preferable to a path element (to the exclusion of JavaScript being able to access them, iirc?) or that the path element blob should be moved into the domain component or should prefix rather than suffix the operands; all valid choices, but none implicitly better or worse here.

Object hash is obviously mandatory for git permalinks, and is perhaps the only mandatory component here. (But notably, that’s not the same as a commit hash.) However, such paths could arguably be interpreted as maximally user-hostile.

File path, interestingly enough, is completely disposable if one refers to a specific result object hash within a commit, but if the prior object hash was required to be a commit, then this is a valid unique identifier for the filesystem-tree contents of that commit. You could use the object hash instead of the full path within the commit hash, but that’s a pretty user-hostile way to go about this.

So, then, which part of the ordering and path selections do you consider indiscriminate, and why?