On approval comments. A friend of mine came up with a new way to approve pull requests, replacing the usual LGTM (looks good to me) with IOTC (I own this code). The reasoning behind this is that LGTM is often used too casually - it's easy to say something looks good without really taking responsibility for the code. After all, "good" can mean different things to different people. It's almost like saying, "This code looks okay to me, but I'm not really connected to it." In contrast, IOTC puts more on your shoulders as the reviewer. It forces you to think more critically about what you're approving to merge into the main branch. When you say IOTC, you're taking full responsibility for the code - even if you didn't write it. This makes perfect sense in a team environment, where once code is merged, it's owned by the team. Any issues or bugs become your responsibility, especially if the original author isn't around. Using IOTC means you're attaching yourself to the code even before it is merged, ensuring you fully understand it and confirm its quality. It reminds you that you're going to support this stuff. And what's your go-to approval comment?