[my_usernam3]

My millage is that it's not absolute "dead weight". It's more wanting limited responsibility and tasks that require limited scope/time spent, but does actually contribute, just a much smaller scale than others.

> The fact that they needed these excuses tells me they felt what they did to be morally wrong and didn't really want to be dead weight.

My guess from your comment is that you judge them for being slackers, and the feel obligated to explain to YOU that its not morally correct. Personally, I have no qualm with those that want to drift around megacorps while collecting a nice paycheck.

[throw_nbvc1234]

Do you feel the same way about people who put effort in but are not skilled enough to contribute (or make things worse by trying)?

[cutemonster]

> people who put effort in ... make things worse

Dead weight? Sounds more like friendly antimatter

GP:

> > I have no qualm with those that want to drift around megacorps

For me, that depends on what the company is doing. Let's say it's mobile games or quant trading -- then, slacking at work in a way just gives people more time away from the computer (fewer games to play?). And changes which ones of the rich people, get richer.

Then what does it matter.

Whilst if one is working for a hospital or a stopping-online-manipulation department, then, in such cases, slacking is sad, not good for society, right

[my_usernam3]

> Whilst if one is working for a hos, pital or a stopping-online-manipulation department, not good for society, right

Oh definitely. I'm under the (maybe wrong) assumption that the majority of people are not doing this. I believe most my peers in the silicon valley bubble I live in aren't really moving needles that benefit humanity.