My default is to run without JS and selectively enable it when absolutely necessary, so when I clicked on this story the page was prefaced with the following comment:

"You're protected from the methods I use here. You disabled JavaScript, so this fingerprinting trick can't run at all. You're still vulnerable to network-based methods. Read on to see what it does to everyone else.

From now on I’ll call you:…"

I've run sans JS as default almost since its inception in the Netscape days and I've very little difficulty without it. On rare occasions when I'm forced to use JS I'll cut-and-paste the URL into another browser.

I no longer use ad blockers as I just don't see ads with JS disabled. The other privacy precautions I take are the obvious ones such as no Google or social media accounts, flushing cookies at session's end, regularly randomize my IP and never let Chrome anywhere near my machines and make judicious use of multiple browsers (this is being written in Privacy Browser on Android).

Using NewPipe and sponsor block on PipePipe increases privacy and makes YouTube ad free.

Client-side scripting was a mistake which was obvious from the outset (or not severely limiting the reach of scripting engines).

What I find hard to understand is why alternative plugin JS engines haven't been developed that are under user control. Spoofing, randomizing and returning junk data to webservers would go a huge way towards stopping fingerprinting by websites.

The alternative is to install a binary that has full access to the computer.