Regarding the arguments in this article
Color me really, really unimpressed. He makes a lot of hay about security matters, but check the CVSs against, oh, VSphere and get back to me. I agree that container technology currently has a higher bug flow rate, but has the author admits, VMs have been around since before I was born, and they remain a steady source of security fails. This is like comparing GCP outages their first year to AWS outages that same calendar year.
Step up on level in the arguments, he more-or-less admits that VMs are becoming more container-like in order to stay relevant. If that's not admission that containers have already effectively won, I don't know what is.
Having said all that, I'm reminded about what happened when Apple went from the PowerPC to Intel. This move completely destroyed their business model, and I observed, "Apple Computer is dead". A year later, the iPhone came out, and Apple changed it's name from Apple Computer to Apple. The company did not die, but it had to invent a market & rebrand itself to survive. I call that a vindicated observation.
I've not played around enough with VMs, or, really, containers to make any strong judgements. But if our understanding of what a VM is and what we expect of it significantly changes, this it is certainly true that "VM"s, as they are currently known, have been eliminated. This article looks to me to be an admission that this is probably the case.