Skip to main content

connotation - Unnecessary vs wasteful action


What's the best choice of word for an action/activity that has no benefit (i.e., strictly speaking, "unnecessary") when trying to put emphasis on the fact that the action is, in itself, wasted?


Saying "wasteful" is also technically correct because some time/effort is "wasted" on the part of whoever is taking the action, but it might give the impression that it is causing waste externally (general resources / the environment), when, in fact, it makes no difference.


Consider this example: some people argue that DST (daylight saving time) saves electricity for lights, while others argue that it causes more energy/resources to be wasted due to use of air-conditioners, disruptions etc. (it's an example, so please don't start a debate on this here!). Some studies on this have found pros and cons in different areas that probably offset each other, so the overall benefits of either case are inconclusive and probably marginal.


To me, that sounds like switching times is unnecessary in that it has no overall effect/benefit, but "unnecessary" sounds a bit too neutral (doesn't matter, so couldn't care either way); I actually think that going through the process of switching (which is not trivial) is a wasted effort, but calling it "wasteful" might give the impression that I espouse the opinion that DST has overall adverse external effects (wasted energy for ACs/heating, losses in economic activity etc.), which is currently not supported by evidence. In other words, I want to express that I see the main "waste" to be the activity itself.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more