I'm not sure about this. I get what he's saying and agree that singleton methods are nothing but a naming convention for the more fundamental/atomic construct called instance methods (which indeed are the only kind of method that exist in Ruby, depending how you look at it), but I think I would actually say that singleton methods are language concepts because those methods like Object#define_singleton_method, ... are always available in Ruby (without needing to require a standard library first, for example). In other words, I would argue that something belonging in the Ruby core "library" (?) by definition makes it part of the language -- even if it in turn builds on even lower-level Ruby language features/constructs.

It doesn't seem like the dot, in this context, would have anything to do with/help with either DNS or character encoding

Was "oll korrect" intended to be a humorous alteration of "all correct" or is it simply due to variations in language? (korrect looks a bit like German. What language could oll be?

I have always believed the Ops was short for Operations, not Operators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DevOps even confirms that belief.

Do they really use a quantum blockchain? What exactly do they mean by that? Probably just a buzzword they're using to attract interest but aren't actually meaning literally.

How would it "know" about hidden pages unless the site owner told them about their existence? (And if that is the case, how is this anything that Osano can claim as a feature or something that they do?) If it is truly hidden, then a conventional bot/spider wouldn't find it by following links.

I don't think the "but more strictly" part is strictly accurate.

Wikipedia authors confirm what I already believed to be true: that the general sense of the word is just as valid/extant/used/common as the sense that is specific to biology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(general) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Not necessarily a good or favorable thing. It might actually be preferable to pick a younger software product that doesn't have the baggage of previous architectural decisions to slow them down. Newer projects can benefit from both (1) the mistakes of previously-originated projects and (2) the knowledge of what technologies/paradigms are popular today; they may therefore be more agile and better able to create something that fits with the current state of the art, as opposite to the state of the art from 10 years ago (which, as we all know, was much different: before the popularity of GraphQL, React, headless CMS, for example).

Older projects may have more technical debt and have more legacy technologies/paradigms/integrations/decisions that they now have the burden of supporting.

So open-source that there is no link to the source code and a web search for this product did not reveal where the source code is hosted.

They're obviously using this term merely as a marketing term without respect for the actual meaning/principles of open source.

It seems that Google Analytics could/would exclude those as well.

Is this even technically possible?

If it were:

• how are they not disclosing this better, since it seems like a privacy concern since there could be any amount of private data in that form, that would what, get sent to Google??
• wouldn't that be a lot of pixels (a lot of data to upload), which would take a lot of time to upload, especially at high screen resolutions?