I'd agree, except a) it's called "Surry Power Station," and b) a quick Google on that name gives you all the gory details.

Surry Power Station

I think you're ignoring the fact in the case of Fukashima, they were set up to be self-sufficient -- it's just that the tsunami knocked out their backup generators.

I find it slightly more concerning that the power plant didn't. They're not designed to be self-sufficient?

I'm glad everyone's moving to the cloud for reliability and scalability purposes!

Based on the "IPv6 is hard!" whining I've heard from their camp, I'm not so convinced they still know what they're doing.

I take it you're assuming that each tunnel subnet requires a network and broadcast address? Nope. All you need for a point-to-point link is two IPs, so using a /64 you waste (2^64)-2 IPs. There's a reason I generally prefer using /127s for PtP links, although some implementations don't like that.

Granted, as many other IPv6 proponents are quick to point out, it's not like we need to worry that much about depleting the IP space, but damned if that kind of wasteful thinking doesn't remind me of how we got into such a mess with IPv4.

AKA "NAT64"

AKA "DNS64"

That's actually slightly dated; it'd now be ::ffff:d822:b52d (although ::ffff:216.34.181.45 works).

You don't understand IPv6 well. RFC4193 space is fc00::/7, not 00fc::/7.

(Sorry, saw that error and had to jump on the bandwagon.)

...so allow for browsing to the ARIN-designated private IP space. If someone's phishing on private space routable to your location, you've got bigger problems.

That assumes that each deleted account belongs to a unique subscriber. Each subscriber can have up to ten email addresses, so that's anywhere between $70,000 and $700,000. Plus, if they make the credit by-request-only, that would hugely reduce the cost (but would be typically evil of them).