You're arguing that masklinn intended to say something he didn't say. I argue that he meant exactly what he said. He said they're using their blocks. You're interpreting blocks as "sub-blocks" but I disagree. masklinn also said in supporting his position:
Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable
Really? If you're anything resembling a network engineer, surely you see how ridiculous this is? And how about this other thing he said:
Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.
Again, really? Multiple public IPs per employee? That's just poppycock. He was wrong, I called him out on it and you can try to re-interpret what he said all you like but the fact is he is just plain wrong. They're not using 16.7MM addresses, they're probably not even using 10% of 16.7MM addresses and assuming that every /8 holder broke their netblocks up in the least flexible and most wasteful way possible is nothing more than an assumption on your part.
Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable
Really? If you're anything resembling a network engineer, surely you see how ridiculous this is? And how about this other thing he said:
Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.
Again, really? Multiple public IPs per employee? That's just poppycock. He was wrong, I called him out on it and you can try to re-interpret what he said all you like but the fact is he is just plain wrong. They're not using 16.7MM addresses, they're probably not even using 10% of 16.7MM addresses and assuming that every /8 holder broke their netblocks up in the least flexible and most wasteful way possible is nothing more than an assumption on your part.