pc enthusiasts aren’t really into running javascript either.
Edit: I took a look and it seems they don't ask/record that info. I apologise for the offence this idea seems to have caused someone.
'PC enthusiast' is such a blanket term to start with, so applying a blanket statement to such a group is obviously doomed to failure from the very start.
From what i've seen web browser teams have taken the recent risks extremely seriously - I have sure had a worse track record of infection via downloading and installing software versus visiting sites with JS running
Not really. They didn't even properly apply band-aids.
Chrome and Firefox disabled number of features, that allow Javascript code to create high-precision timers. This makes exploiting slightly more difficult, but the gaping hole is still there — there is infinite number of ways to create a high-precision timer, just not as obvious as closed ones.
Chrome has enabled Site Isolation on desktop, but haven't done it on Android (presumably, because of associated increase in memory consumption).
All major browsers still allow Javascript to run in background, create CPU threads and consume unrestricted amount of CPU time. I don't believe, that any of them have mounted instruction-based defenses (lfence etc.), but I may be mistaken here.