A lot of IT people I know seem to think that they are environmentally correct due to static site deployment.
I am very interested to know how true this is.
If you have 10 static (sic) sites rebuilding on every change (say, for this exercise, one change per hour (faux user) per site via headless cms).. (so lots of unnecessary builds; possibly overlapping; every content change(save) is a build).. a lot of builds are not going to make it (but happen) and maybe also somewhere an extra cron to force a rebuild (for the customer.. in case of...) .. how is that better than one or two simple js or php site talking to the db?
The amount of power consumed is silly..
Can anyone really play the static card? their only card played is "possible" seo.. 100% Google Chrome Audit
Open discussion as I am truly interested.