You've been downvoted because this shouldn't be true, but since no-one else has stepped up, I'll bite :).
It's perfectly possible to do IP-based rate-limiting in the IPv6 world, you just need to do it based on different prefixes, rather than full IPs.
As a specific example, my ISP -- as is quite usual -- hands out /48s. So in the same way that you can rate limit my entire NAT'd IPv4 connection with a single entry, you can rate limit my entire IPv6 connection with a single entry, by storing the prefix.
There are certain parts of the industry hesitant to transition for the possibility of security mis-configurations and human errors, the picture that the VOIP industry as a whole holds no interest in security is false. It could definitely improve, but that doesn't just apply to VOIP.
It's not an opinion or unrelated but an analogy to another case where there's very strong evidence of a massive benefit with very little downside which is being objected to based on conspiracy theories and lack of concern for the damage to anyone foolish enough to believe them.
As a side note, the debate is not that simple. Vaccines work, but many vaccines are manufactured without what many would consider proper testing, and using toxic substances banned in different countries.
The debate is more about sloppy implementations than about the idea of vaccines as a whole. It's like someone is forcing the issue down to choosing poorly-regulated vaccines - or no vaccines at all. A false dichotomy.
> The debate is more about sloppy implementations than about the idea of vaccines as a whole. It's like someone is forcing the issue down to choosing poorly-regulated vaccines - or no vaccines at all. A false dichotomy
This actually goes quite strongly against what I've observed though. Literally all of the anti-vaxxers I've met are 100% against vaccines. They are not vaccinated, nor are their children.
They're not doing research and choosing to use some vaccines but not others. They're completely ignoring all vaccines.
> As a side note, the debate is not that simple. Vaccines work, but many vaccines are manufactured without what many would consider proper testing, and using toxic substances banned in different countries.
Those are big claims without any supporting evidence. From the sounds of it, you're repeating the anti-vax claims about mercury.
Ethyl vs Methyl mercury is one of the most popular debates (because mercury is scary!). Most vaccines switched to Thiomersal which has ethylmercury in it. However, even ethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier. Other 2 big ingredients are formaldehyde and aluminum. From there you have to get more specific about which vaccine you are talking about.
You still haven’t specified your claims. Which vaccines aren’t well tested? Which substances are included at levels known or suspected to be toxic, and by whom?
There's more mecury in the fish you eat and it's the methyl kind which sticks around for weeks. If you eat fruit, there's methanol naturally present which the body metabolizes into formaldehyde. I am willing to bet your kid gets a higher dosage of formaldehyde from the juices they drink then a vaccine.
> That makes more sense than trying to force a completely unrelated opinion into a conversation.
I'm curious, at what point does that opinion become fact? Isn't the evidence overwhelming?
I mainly ask because it feels like if the evidence for vaccination were not sufficient to warrant it as more than simply an opinion, wouldn't many other things become merely opinion too?