I think that there's compelling counter-examples to the author's title, at least. The rest (about how trials shouldn't always be assumed to be independent etc) is interesting, but the title seems clickbaity and wrong.

The bit where they present their main evidence against the gambler's fallacy:

> So back to gamblers. What is the gambler's fallacy? Many have suggested to me that it's the tendency to think that a heads is more likely after a string of tails, despite knowing that the tosses are statistically independent. But this can't be right––for no one commits that fallacy. After all, knowing that the tosses are independent is just knowing that a heads is not more (or less) likely after a string of tails

I think "no one commits that fallacy" is plainly untrue. There are various games (Gacha games, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gacha_game) where the outcome is random independent probability. In fact, due to gambling laws, these games have to publish exact probabilities.

Despite there being clear evidence, people will commit a combination of the sunk cost fallacy and gambler's fallacy and convince themselves to spend more money on more independent random trials because surely they're almost there.

We've seen similar things with lootboxes with published odds.

We see similar things with casinos that contain various games of true independent random probability.

They key difference here is between people rationally knowing that those odds are independent, and them being able to bridge that to their irrational belief that they're special, or lucky, or that they're "owed" luck. People are not rational, people can hold conflicting things in their head, and the gambler's fallacy is one of the common irrationalities a lot of people act on.