You linked “Mental Disorder”, which can be a whole bunch of things including mental illnesses, but I’m talking about “Personality Disorder” specifically, which can almost never be cured.

The question is who we should try to protect. You can tell a narcisist to seek help for sure, but also tell others to stay away from that narcisist until he/she has changed to an empathetic being (which rarely happens). Narcisists don’t see a reason to change, as they feel entiled to see other people in their lives as resources. Each of them is hurting many people through manipulation and explotation. If you meet a psycopath/sociotpath/narcisist, there’s only one advice: run!

That is trying to play with semantics. A disorder is an illness

Semantics are important here to differenciate between different ways of dealing with it properly. People should know that narcissists/psycopaths/sociopaths cannot change to the better, because the inherent nature is not accepting any flaw. Only by knowing this other people can protect themselves by not keeping contact to them. It’s the only way to protect yourself.

The sad truth is that part of being a narcissist, psychopath, or sociopath is not accepting any flaws. These three types of disorders are self-sustaining; their inherent nature makes it almost impossible to change for the better.

They are classified as personality disorders because they involve stable, deeply ingrained patterns of behavior and thought, rather than episodic disruptions typical of mental illnesses. Treatment is challenging due to the ingrained nature of these traits, lack of self-awareness, and resistance to change. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and other therapeutic approaches can help manage symptoms but cannot cure the fundamental personality traits. The primary goal is to mitigate the disorder’s impact on the individual’s life and those around them.

Where in those sources does it say that it’s an illness? It says it’s a disorder.

Also, it states the prognoses is “poor”.

Being a psycopath/sociopath/narcisist is not a mental illness, but a personality disorder. The affected person does not suffer from it, but the surrounding people. It is dangerous, and it cannot be treated.

Well I’ve heard Cybertrucks are getting cheap because not many people want them.

Well, such a license could just obligat to open source the AI model that has been trained on it. If the instance prohibits training of AI models, or allow it, would be a separate condition that’s up to the instance owner, and its users can decide if they want to contribute under that condition, or not.

Goldman Sachs would not publish it that prominantly if it didn’t help their internal goals. And their intention is certainly not to help the public or their competitors. There are independent studies of some topics that are all well made and get to opposite conclusions. Invedtment firms just do what serves them. I wouldn’t trust anything that they publish.

There are studies that suggest that the information investment firms publish is not based on what they believe to be true, but on what they want others, including their competitors, believe to be true. And in many cases for serving their investment strategy, it benefits them to publish the opposite of what they believe to be true.

If Goldman Sachs said that, then most likely the opposite is true.

I’m surprised how everyone here believes what that capitalist company is saying, just because it fits their own narrative of AI being useless.

Why not banning them in schools, are they needed for studying?

Trac was great years ago. As much as I know, they were stuck on Python 2 until the very last moment 3 years ago, so it became almost unusable, and the UI is not responsive even today, not usable on phone. It used to be really great, but be careful relying on it before doing research on its current development.

The article is talking about “health problem” in its last paragraph. But Narcissism isn’t a mental disorder or a mental illness; it is a personality disorder. (The narcissist is not suffering from the disorder; it’s the surrounding people who are.) The whole text is based on the author’s wrong understanding of the fundamentals of the subject, which renders the whole article useless.

That’s a great idea. Can we not apply a license to that social content that forces AI models trained on it to be open source?

I appreciate your detailed description of the probable benefits of telemetry. While I acknowledge there are benefits, however, before accepting a given set of telemetry, I would like to know with sources and in exact terms (not just ‘improved UI’) what enhancements were made to Firefox that couldn’t be achieved without telemetry. I want to decide for myself if those features are truly important enough to justify sending my personal data to the developers. Only then can I make an informed decision, and it still wouldn’t necessarily mean agreement. It’s not paranoia; it’s simply refusing telemetry for any reason given.

Privacy always comes at a cost. We are all different and have varying preferences based on our experiences and perspectives. Deciding how much privacy one wants to give up for convenience or other benefits is a personal choice. There’s no need to judge others for that decision. To each their own.

There’s certainly a trade-off by not having Telemetry, and I prefer privacy over some “slightly better development”. It is not necessary for good development.

Websites collect information, but I expect that in a public space, and also aggregating information across websites isn’t so easy. However, I have higher expectations for my web browser. When something is installed on my laptop, it’s like my house, and I don’t want anything to access my private space without permission.

Even worse, Firefox has it implemented as Opt-Out. Telemetry by default and without asking the user isn’t good practice. At the very least, they should give users a choice before enabling it. Yet, they collect everyone’s IP address and other information at least once when you start up Firefox for the first time. This doesn’t deserve my trust.

I don’t want to play a game of ‘what do I need to opt-out for privacy’ with an entity that I need to trust. Why would I use Firefox if Icecat gives me the level of trust that I need. It’s a personal choice.

By default Firefox collects data and sends it to their server, which Icecat doesn’t. I don’t want having to use another service like NextDNS to protect me against the application that I want to be able to trust because I’m using it for a lot of personal data.

From the mozilla website itself:

Identification:

When Firefox sends data to us, your IP address is temporarily collected as part of our server logs.

And then the data that I don’t want to share with other entities:

Interaction data includes information about your interactions with Firefox such as number of open tabs and windows, number of webpages visited, number and type of installed Firefox Add-ons and session length, as well as Firefox features offered by Mozilla or our partners such as interaction with Firefox search features and search partner referrals.

Technical data includes information about your Firefox version and language, device operating system and hardware configuration, memory, basic information about crashes and errors, outcome of automated processes like updates and safebrowsing.

Icecat, a Firefox fork without Firefox’s privacy issues (telemetry).

Thanks, that worked! I did overlook that little icon indeed.

I’m still a bit curious about the other search dialog of the Community page: Even with the type set to “Communities” and the scope set to “all,” it doesn’t yield any results. Expecting it to display the searched community might be a misconception on my part about how Lemmy or the Fediverse works, or could it be more like a usability issue in Lemmy? The search form looks exactly the same with the exact same parameters.