I get it, sort of. In that case I just tell myself "it's hyperbole for lazy people" and move on. "Could care less", though, that one I cannot reconcile.
Everyone is going after the 'go home at 5 pm' part, but missing the point.
The moment HN hears about people staying past 5, everyone is up in arms, but... what if I'm staying past 5 so I can leave earlier the next day? Or past 5 for a week to get something done on time, and then taking off early for the next week when there's less to do? Personally, I'd prefer to do that in a nice office. It works for me, and for the company!
Even just in general. The effects of an office are far more than just 'do people stay past 5'. Even within a strict 9-5 work period, there is a huge amount of variance. If the office is depressing and soulless, it will have knock on effects on productivity and employee happiness. Again, good for the employees and the company.
But no, according to these comments an office people stay at longer is always evil.
Like it or not, from a company owner's perspective, it is.
Also, it's not like a soulless or poorly configured office has negative effects only after 5pm. I know someone who's in a WeWork office temporarily - they love it, because the old space was poorly configured and amplified stress. Go figure, they've also mentioned they feel more productive and are getting more done.
But they're not they're any longer than they were before.
Anecdotally, smartwatches are quite unobtrusive and pretty quickly reach 'just there' if you wear one the time.
Mine is much closer to a keyring that you pull out as needed than a smartphone that comes out all the time, certainly closer than I'd expected. Of course, the other part may be that as with a normal watch, you tend to glance for a second and be done with it for a while.
I get it, sort of. In that case I just tell myself "it's hyperbole for lazy people" and move on. "Could care less", though, that one I cannot reconcile.