And yes, running JS in a users browser to store or access information is exactly the same. Taking a browser fingerprint and storing it server side is also the same, just harder to get caught doing. This whole trying to maliciously take these laws literally need to stop.
Also, I'm not trying to "maliciously take these laws literally". The law isn't limited to cookies, so you can't get around it by using a narrow definition of the word "cookie".
Or perhaps the author does have a technical background, which is why they attempted to give a clear yet simple explanation for the non-technical?
People hear cookies are bad, they get pestered by cookie banners, so it makes sense to use cookie as an umbrella term. Their definition of tracking matches the law which is the important part.
(The main exception to their list is scripts, which are only cookie-like to the extent that they use cookies or other client side storage)
Could be a unique pixel that does or does not exist in the browser cache (is or isn't fetched (fought?)).
A pixel can store information as long as the cache works as expected.
That is a weird use of the word "cookie". In normal usage, it doesn't mean a technology that accesses or stores the information, it is that information itself.
"Pixels" is also weird. I think that they mean tracking pixels, which are one-pixel images that are just there so that the browser has to request them from the server and the server can notice that request. They are a subclass of "Beacons". Calling them a "technology that can access or store information on a person's device" seems misleading. Also, reCaptcha wouldn't need them. They already have Javascript running on my PC, they don't need a tracking pixel to contact the server.