ChristopherAlexander Says, "Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice". Even though Alexander was talking about patterns in buildings and towns, what he says is true about object-oriented design patterns.
...
Design patterns are not about designs such as linked lists and hash tables that can be encoded in classes and reused as is. Nor are they complex, domain-specific designs for an entire application of subsystem. The design patterns in this book(Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable OO Software) are descriptions of communicating objects and classes that are customized to solve a general design problem in a particular context.

A design pattern names, abstracts, and identifies the key aspects of a common design structure that make it useful for creating a reusable object-oriented design. The design pattern identifies the participating classes and instances, their roles and collaborations, and the distribution of responsibilities. Each design pattern focuses on a particular object-oriented design problem of issue.

&[From Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Erich Gamma et al. &]

No. The point of the talk is this: The "design patterns" you get from the Gang-of-Four book are not the same as the idea of "design patterns" that are put forward in Alexander's books. People say they are, but they aren't the same thing. Alexander's idea is a really good one, one that programmers might find useful. But very few programmers are going to find out about it, because they think they already know what it is. But they actually know this other idea which happens to go by the same name.

So (once again) we need to take a fresh look at Christopher Alexander.