You're right. This is clear had I actually noted that disclaimer, and was simply an oversight on my part. With that in mind, I'll just agree with your analysis

You're right. This is clear had I actually noted that disclaimer, and was simply an oversight on my part. With that in mind, I'll just agree with your analysis, redefining "work" to include "non-employment" is detrimental to the conversation. When people discuss work/life balance (i.e. in the original article), they are (almost universally) not talking about balancing intellectually stimulating hobbies and the rest of life. We are, from the onset, talking about jobs, i.e. employment. Additionally, I think my original comment is still useful when discussing the more common definition of work.