In the specific case discussed in the article and comments, I'm advocating for another interpretation:

4a. "If a process is unlikely to be needed any time soon, shutting it down and then paying cold-start costs if and when it's needed again, is better than keeping it going and wasting resources better used elsewhere", and

4b. "There's an infinitely long tail of low-probability problems, and you can't possibly afford to maintain advance readiness for any of them".

Also on the overall sentiment:

4c. "Paying a cold-start cost isn't a penalty or sign of bad planning. It's just a cost."