If you're a Python (or Ruby) dev, and this stuff is interesting to you, that's a symptom of a problem. The problem is that you haven't read this:
I'd also take issue with the implication that Python is powerful enough for the common patterns to disappear completely. it doesn't have macros, for a start, so implementing coupled Strategies of any complexity means you're back in class FooStrategy() land.
Recognising when you are or should be implementing a recognised pattern means that you can rely on a lot of analysis of that pattern, largely without paying attention to the environment in which that analysis was performed. That's potentially a big win.
I guess what I'm getting at is that throwing away patterns means throwing away a decent lingua franca for talking about the anatomy of your code. Given that, as someone far smarter than me once said, code is primarily for humans to read and only incidentally for computers to execute, that seems like a poor decision.
The code in this article confirms the suspicion of pattern skeptics that GoF-style patterns lead to code constructed out of pick-and-mix patterns instead of actual sensible code.
I don't think pointing someone who does not realize that the strategy pattern can be accomplished by passing around functions since they are first class objects at a dynamic language DP tutorial is going to do anything more than give them different ideas to misuse.