diff --git "a/About-\"uBlock-is-inferior-in-capabilities-as-a-result-of-being-lighter-on-the-browser\".md" "b/About-\"uBlock-is-inferior-in-capabilities-as-a-result-of-being-lighter-on-the-browser\".md"
index 91c6958..6fd8e61 100644
--- "a/About-\"uBlock-is-inferior-in-capabilities-as-a-result-of-being-lighter-on-the-browser\".md"
+++ "b/About-\"uBlock-is-inferior-in-capabilities-as-a-result-of-being-lighter-on-the-browser\".md"
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ This is my reference answer to such claims.
 uBO is lighter on the browser because of many choices which were made regarding how the filtering engine is designed internally. A coarse enumeration of these choices are:
 - lean in-memory filter representation
 - plain string comparisons instead of regular expressions wherever possible
-    - a majority of network filters can be reduced to plain string comparison, and this is what uBO does internally for these filters, whereas Adblock Plus (ABP) converts _all_ network filters into regular expressions.
+    - a majority of network filters can be reduced to plain string comparison, and this is what uBO does internally for these filters, whereas ABP converts _all_ network filters into regular expressions.
     - Example, `&ad_zones=` (filter found in EasyList).
         - ABP's code conceptually is: `/&ad_zones=/.test(url)` -- the whole URL must be scanned
         - uBO's code conceptually is: `url.startsWith('&ad_zones=', i)` -- no scanning of the URL