[_Nat_]

A simpler analogy may've been a smoke-detector that doesn't actually activate when there's smoke. It'd be cheap, super-efficient (no battery needed!), light-weight, no false-alarms, and still usually work correctly 100% of the time for most people.

Another simple analogy may've been a regularized neural-network that's super-efficient because it always returns a nominal-result, not needing to do any calculations. It could work ~>99.9% of the time because the nominal-result is ~>99.9% prevalent.

The author was trying to point out scenarios where lazy-neglect may seem viable. By contrast, some readers may want to give those in the examples the benefit-of-the-doubt, as they might actually be taking no-action as a conscientious decision. While we often want to give folks the benefit-of-the-doubt, that's presumably not how the author intended those examples to be read.

The author was presumably trying to paint pictures in which folks might thrive through neglectful practices, rather than trying to characterize all folks who superficially resemble those in the thought-experiments as being neglectful.