IPv4 address with more address bits would have worse, because it would have the same incompatibility problem as IPv6, without its benefits.
Actually, IPv6 is good design. Adoption is slow because most people and companies always prefer a cheap short term inferior solution compared to the good long term one.
Now, IPv6 is 25% of traffic. It will continue to grow, and at a point the network effect will be on IPv6 side. Not long after that, IPv4 will only be a niche for a few legacy systems.
If we want to use only one official working language, it should be Esperanto. This would be neutral for any country (including Ireland and Malta). This would not be a threat to other languages and cultures.
Esperanto is easier to learn than any naturally evolved language. Its benefits are clear, it only needs a political support to thrive.
The author explicitly said it is not motivated by money for this project.
When you have money, you may like the power it gives you to make incentives so people do what you like. However, in some rare cases, someone doesn't need your money and prefers doing thing how himself likes. If you don't like that, that's your problem and not the one of the people refusing your money.
The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior.
If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".
Actually, IPv6 is good design. Adoption is slow because most people and companies always prefer a cheap short term inferior solution compared to the good long term one.
Now, IPv6 is 25% of traffic. It will continue to grow, and at a point the network effect will be on IPv6 side. Not long after that, IPv4 will only be a niche for a few legacy systems.