Instead of trying convince-by-assertion, maybe you could try offering an actual objection to the argument raised up-thread?

On what basis do you claim that software developers, who did not establish a means of for third parties to get a stable identifier, nevertheless intended that fingerprinting techniques should work?

No, it is not. I'm talking in the context of OP, which refers to a fingerprinting "vulnerability", specifically using the word "vulnerability" to describe it.

How would you frame it?