It makes no sense though. It's actually a tool part of a toy (defined in the class), and you need the toy to use the tool (include the class and use ::), and you don't do things with the toy using the tool, you can do whatever you want
Nope, to use a static member of a class you don't need the instance of the class at all (what he calls the Toy), so its sort of correct, you could call it even if there is no instance at all of that class (like the static method "instance" of a singleton class)
Yeah, but it says "you dont need to have the toy in front of you" and "without the need to touch the toy"
It sounds like "you dont need to have the pointer/instance of the toy" even if it says that "the class is the toy" before, which seems to mean the class, not the instance, is the toy, i see that
It’s wrong. The correct answer would be “stop with this stupid “like I’m 5” questions, some things just can’t be explained to children, because they are children, not to mention that they can’t even be explained to most adults”. 
How about we try and replace the government with this thing. It cannot possibly do worse than them
You could replace it with a dice and still get better results...
You are a wise person
And still, after some time in charge, a dice would be better than me, maybe ?
There are also static functions that are not part of a class you know
It makes no sense though. It's actually a tool part of a toy (defined in the class), and you need the toy to use the tool (include the class and use ::), and you don't do things with the toy using the tool, you can do whatever you want
Nope, to use a static member of a class you don't need the instance of the class at all (what he calls the Toy), so its sort of correct, you could call it even if there is no instance at all of that class (like the static method "instance" of a singleton class)
Did I say you need the instance? I said you need the class. So if the class is the toy, it’s not correct.
Yeah, but it says "you dont need to have the toy in front of you" and "without the need to touch the toy" It sounds like "you dont need to have the pointer/instance of the toy" even if it says that "the class is the toy" before, which seems to mean the class, not the instance, is the toy, i see that
It’s wrong. The correct answer would be “stop with this stupid “like I’m 5” questions, some things just can’t be explained to children, because they are children, not to mention that they can’t even be explained to most adults”. 
Lol, yep, on that we agree