This is why I will point out issues in code only on the form of stating potential improvements as best as I can. I especially try to avoid hating on the author - it might have been me or the boss who's standing nearby...
In fact, I often conciously refrain from using blame on an "interesting" piece of code because it doesn't matter who wrote it. Looking it up would just satisfy idle curiosity, but yield noninsight into how to improve the code. In fact, I think that blame should just list the commits, but hide the authors by default. "What changed? " and "how?" are always much more pressing questions than "who?".
My experience varies a lot. Maybe it's just my colleagues write better commit messages but blame (and looking up the PR and code review) is often a good method of understanding why the code is that way
Yes, but blame puts the focus too much on the authors instead of the changes themselves. I also use it to understand how code evolved over time, but only in circumstances where I suspect the history to hold import clues.
Pinning bad work on a person does not make progress. Fixing bad code does.
In fact, I often conciously refrain from using blame on an "interesting" piece of code because it doesn't matter who wrote it. Looking it up would just satisfy idle curiosity, but yield noninsight into how to improve the code. In fact, I think that blame should just list the commits, but hide the authors by default. "What changed? " and "how?" are always much more pressing questions than "who?".