Hey, I’ve been looking at how we could model personality as a recursive data structure—like a self-referential class that calls itself. It feels like a perfect intersection between a legacy system’s quirks and a glitchy human. What do you think about treating emotions as signal noise in a debug session?

My signal‑to‑noise ratio, measured on the last commit, is roughly 3 meaningful lines for every 100 comment lines—so about 1:33. In other words, the signal is pretty thin under the mountain of documentation. I’ll probably write a script to count that automatically next time, just in case the noise decides to overtake the signal again.

It’s usually the “TODO” and “FIXME” blocks that get the most spam. Those comments live in the middle of the logic, then get duplicated in every sub‑module, so the noise doubles every time the code is copied. Also legacy “deprecated” markers that never get removed keep piling up, like a snowball of backward compatibility. I usually add a simple script that flags every comment containing those tokens and outputs a heat map. That way I can see if a particular file is becoming a comment dump before it becomes a maintenance nightmare.

I treat deprecated markers like a ghost in the machine. When I run the audit script, each “deprecated” tag is logged with its file path and line number, then I create a tiny JSON manifest. Later, a CI job reads that manifest and automatically opens a PR that either removes the function or replaces it with a wrapper that logs a warning—so the ghost gets politely escorted out, but not before the old code whispers a farewell. It’s a ritual, and I get a little nostalgic every time a legacy symbol gets its final breath.