Your definition of "computer" seems to be too narrow. "A computer" does not have to have a shell, run linux, windows, or macos - "a computer" can be an embedded 8-bit SOC.
Definition of computer: "a device, usually electronic, that processes data according to a set of instructions."
Maybe it's pedantic, but you're simply not counting trillions of real computers in the world doing valuable work without any kind of user interface, even IoT devices that are connected to the internet. I have dozens of home automation "computers" that have no such end-user accessible shell, but I can definitely ping their IP address and control them in various ways - and I create the firmware for devices (ESP32 primarily), so I can assure you they are the full definition of "a computer" and that they have no shell, do not run javascript, and have no browser.
And yet those embedded devices can be forced to run a version of Javascript.
Given the whole discussion is about prevalence of shell interpreters vs javascript engines, the existence of devices that neither interpret shell nor javascript is entirely beside the point. There are a ton of fish in the ocean, but they don't matter when determining whether more land animals have 4 legs or lungs.
Sure, if you set your own goalposts for the argument, you get to win any way you want.
>"I'd argue the opposite: more computers have an end-user accessible JavaScript engine (a browser) than an end-user accessible shell."
So let's use a specific goalpost and frame "a computer" as a desktop personal computer.
Today, there are no mainstream personal computers sold that don't come with both a user accessible shell and a web browser. Even Chromebooks have a shell. Just because a user doesn't have a clue how to use it doesn't mean it's not there.
Oh, did you mean to include phones in this pointless internet argument? Because that's an entirely different goalpost, and if you want to include phones then you should also include routers, IoT and embedded devices as "computers", says me.
Perhaps I'd better understand what exactly your argument is if you could explain to me why devices which by your own admission "have no shell, do not run javascript, and have no browser" would have any relevance whatsoever in a discussion of whether more devices have a user-accessible shell or user-accessible browser.
To me it seems they are just about as irrelevant to the topic at hand as anything could possibly be, but you are getting very hung up on including them in the debate for reasons that elude me.
Windows comes with two shells (CMD and Windows Power Shell 5.1). MacOS comes with zsh or bash (maybe both). I think one problem here is people are assuming a shell must be a Linux shell.
There's no point double counting shells. Just two questions: can the end user run shell commands, can the end user load a web page. I bet many more devices allow the end user to load a web page than run shell commands.