No, all these downvotes because the ones they're talking about are reserved addresses for other types of networking. In hindsight, lots of those reserved addresses are not doing much of use being reserved and could have been used as normal addresses, but it's too late to change that now. If we could retroactively change the protocol to remove those blocks, and maybe while we're at it take back most of 127.0.0.0/8 and 0.0.0.0/8, we could gain maybe 600 million addresses if we're lucky. That would help push the problem back a bit more, but it would not fix any of the other reasons why IPV6 was adopted, nor would it prevent IPV4 from running out of addresses.
We could go to more lengths to take addresses away from organizations that don't need them. Lots of addresses are stuck there, but at the end, we will still have a cap near 4B addresses, and the internet is growing to the extent that it is not enough addresses. The truth is that your equipment can already handle this unless it's really ancient, that the addresses may be harder to read, but they're not really that difficult, and that you sometimes have to do something moderately tricky when tech changes. Trying to reclaim multicast will require as much work on your part to implement as adopting IPV6, but it also requires a bunch of code changes which have already been completed for most IPV6 systems. We should not have to go to the effort of forcing every internet user in Asia , Africa, and South America through multi-layer CGNAT and an annoying process where we try to convince the US military to give up some of their /8s because they always take suggestions from the public so you don't have to beta test a new network.