Part of the genius of Amazon Prime is that it capitalizes on the sunk cost fallacy. I (happily) give them $100/yr to allow me to shop there with no shipping costs, and, by god, I'm going to get my money's worth. I'm not going to squander my sunk costs by shopping at some brick-and-mortar store! IMO, this is one of the biggest hurdles Walmart has to overcome.
I think Walmart is right that accessibility and immediacy is sometimes desirable. If I blow a tire on my bike and I want to ride to work tomorrow, I'm still heading to a brick-and-mortar store. I can grab a few groceries while I'm there.
I do also think they could leverage their distribution network. There's a Walmart on pretty much everybody's way home from work, and it's only a minor inconvenience to stop in to pick something up. I've done it before for larger items that Amazon wouldn't ship free.
But that Prime, though! I love it, and I wouldn't give it up, and there's no way I'd pay somebody else for a similar service in addition to it. That's where they've really got me. That's how Amazon went from something I only used for hard-to-find items to my go-to vendor for practically everything.
...how many are cost-cutting cord-cutters supposed to maintain at once?
One. Or zero. Or five. Your choice. That's what the free market is all about.
If I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds like you're arguing against competition. If that's your thing, then just pay your money to Comcast or whoever, and ignore all the others. For myself, I'd prefer to use Netflix for now, and then if I get bored of their content, maybe try Hulu for a while, or Amazon, or maybe a couple of 'em at the same time...
The point is that I get to choose. I won't be choosing YouTube Red unless they bring more to the table, but I still welcome them to come and try to compete for my business.
"You're assuming that performance -- or, more precisely, CPU usage -- is important; in many cases, reliability (and being able to track down bugs after a crash) are far more important than CPU usage."
I work on a real-time embedded medical device, where both performance and reliability are vital. We've got constrained resources, and the system must be extremely responsive.
Our logging scheme is pretty cool. It's written so that two computers can log to a single hard drive, and each logging statement must define a log level. So, for example, if I'm writing GUI code, I can log to log_level_gui_info, log_level_gui_debug, log_level_gui_error, or any of a number of more specific log levels.
The idea is
So, we have two ways to filter out extraneous logging that we don't care about (one actually keeps the logging from happening, and one just filters it out during analysis), and we can log as freely as we like as long as we're smart about which levels we're using.
As much faith as we all have in our own code, nothing's as frustrating as trying to analyze a log that came in from the field where there's just no information about what went wrong.