You either completely missed the point or you are too invested in going off on a tangent to try to change the subject.
The $100 vs $10 was not intended to argument the merit of $10 savings: it refutes the absurd claim that $100 expenditures justifies adopting a convoluted architecture, because the fact is not adopting a convoluted architecture is actually much cheaper.
Additionally, somehow you've brushed aside the fact that the main cost is developer time, and a convoluted solution based on flavor-of-the-month tech fads requires more maintenance and developer man-hours than basic tried-and-true solutions like standard run-of-the-mill web services.
> How much would it cost to have build servers that could handle peak demand and how much of a waste would it be to have that server sitting idle?
I honestly fail to see what point you're trying to make because: a) you don't need "serverless" services such as AWS lambdas to get CICD pipelines to work, and b) cluster autoscaling is a basic offering provided by pretty much all major cloud providers. Thus, what's your point?
> As far as it taking “two or three weeks” - “its a poor craftsmen who blames his tools”.
So any proof that refutes your baseless assertions is brushed aside by your "you're holding it wrong" baseless assertion? Doesn't sound like a discussion on technical merits.
You're underlining the biggest problem with buzzword-driven development: the lack of technical merit is a constant and everything boils down to petty personal politics.