zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
I tend to consider bullshit any point that finds somehow acceptable thinking that people is lazy, in this society, in this world, on this planet, ffs we have to work 40 hrs per week per decades and rest after reincarnation, and you want to talk about laziness? Let's talk about how any bit of mental energy is extracted to built other's wealth and then when you are too old to do nothing other than watching work in progress they just spit you out

when I am supposed to fix tech debt? if every week there is another functionality going out that needs to be done yesterday? Do you think that I have to do it in my free time? Why should I even bother existing

>>lnxg33+h1
Being not-lazy in your work is not the same as working lots of hours.

>>qup+Y2
No, this is absolutely not true.

Laziness is not working hard.

What you're talking about is something else.

Sloppy or Careless work maybe?

But not lazy. If you're working 40+ hours a week you're definitely not lazy.

>>bluefi+S3
Most people consider low-effort to be lazy.

You can absolutely put in a lot of hours, but be putting in near-zero effort. This results in sloppy or careless work, but the root cause is the laziness of the person.

>>Prozia+j4
> This results in sloppy or careless work, but the root cause is the laziness of the person.

If someone is producing a high volume of low effort work, they are not lazy. What they are is not disciplined, or not skilled.

If someone is producing low volumes of high effort work, they are similarly not lazy, they are highly skilled and maybe a perfectionist

If someone is producing high volumes of high effort work they are a either a one of a kind savant or they are lying about the volume or effort.

If someone is producing low volumes of low effort work, then maybe we can call them lazy.

>>bluefi+R8
You forgot the most common case:

Someone skilled produces low volumes of medium-to-high effort work because they are the sort of person who would rather browse social media, or engage in office gossip, or play "call a meeting to discuss" games to avoid having to do the boring work.

If someone is "undisciplined," more often they are just lazy and are engaging in avoidance behaviors. Humans with serious executive function issues are a tiny (super tiny) minority of the workforce.

>>Prozia+Tq
>Someone skilled produces low volumes of medium-to-high effort work

So based on the table they are skilled, right? Are you suggesting that they are a savant in disguise and that they can produce high volumes of high effort work if they weren't "lazy"?

if the work is considered medium-to-high effort by the organization, your opinion on if it's avoiding "boring" work (which can still be low or high effort) is irrelevant.

>If someone is "undisciplined," more often they are just lazy and are engaging in avoidance behaviors.

IME it's because the employers don't trust nor want them to work on the high effort work. So either the business's most profitable software is the most boring, or the candidate is too junior (alternatively, the position and responsibility is simply filled or not valued)

>Humans with serious executive function issues are a tiny (super tiny) minority of the workforce.

Likewise, humans who can do "productive" creative work for 80 hours a week consistently, for years, is also a super tiny minority.

At the end of the day, "lazy" is relative and we haven't even established a baseline for what is/isn't lazy. So this conversation won't go anywhere. All we established in your lens is that taking breaks or doing non-technical work (meetings, even gossip depending on the line of work) is not productive in your eyes.