I finished the piece noticing times that "heuristics that almost work" were a genuine temptation for me to adopt and having more empathy for people who end up adopting them. If you really don't feel like you could ever be tempted to become lazy in the way that the piece illustrates then I admire your integrity but there are actually many of us who are tempted to reduce the rigor with which we investigate things when we know what is almost certainly going to be the answer.

The mere fact that you think of using these kinds of heuristics as "lazy" and "acting without integrity" is itself an example of why this article creates a moralistic dichotomy that's both completely untrue and entirely unnecessary.

Don't fall for it. Laziness is a lot rarer than you may believe, even in yourself. People don't just "do bad things" very often for the sake of doing bad things, there are almost always reasons beyond the obvious.

Not seeking a reason beyond the obvious IS what the concept of Laziness means, so its not rare at all. When you don't care if there is a reason for not doing something, you call it Laziness.

It's not a temptation. It's a necessity. The mere act of getting off bed requires the heuristics that "I can probably safely get of my bed". Everyone uses heuristics that almost always works, because there's no practical alternatives. A doctor who doesn't use heuristics will need to test all patients for cancer, because there's always a chance that there's a tumor behind any symptoms.