Sure it will help. But by no means did you learn how to swim through theory alone.

Which is kind of the whole point of this post

They learned how to swim by being thrown in.

Which would by definition be a form of practice.

Which means they learned how to swim by practice.

Which means they did not learn how to swim simply through theory. They first had to practice and then apply the theory they learned, which is still learning by practice.

The spirit of ops question would be reading and learning about it and then being able to jump in the pool and swim without practicing, immediately. Because if you cannot and you first have to practice then by the very statement of this sentence you learned via practice.

Yeah, but if you’re doing it in a swimming pool to practice, then you didn’t learn how to swim by reading about it. You learn how to swim by practice, which is how everyone learns how to swim

That practice isn’t just reading or watching to learn. That practice is the motor skill development necessary to apply what you have learned.

Which means the answer would still be no because you are cheating by practicing. You did not just learn about it by watching videos and reading, You learned about it through development of motor skills through practice.

You have not “learned to swim” by only reading & watching at that point. You have learned to swim the way everyone else does, but being in water and practicing.

Which is opposite to the presented problem.

To stick to the spirit of the question, learning to swim without ever swimming would be dropping yourself into the middle of a lake after reading and watching about swimming. And then you either learned about it and you swim away or you didn’t and you drown.

We all know how ridiculous that is because you would just drown. Because you would have not learned how to swim just by reading about it and watching others.

There’s a difference between already developing motor skills and then trying to improve those motor skills by learning from the skills of others.

And having not developed those motor skills and then trying to learn them from the experiences of others.

If you have never crawled or walked your entire life, you can’t learn how to crawl or walk just by reading about it. The neural pathways literally don’t exist for you to be able to balance and move. You would need to actually do the physical actions to develop those neural connections for those motor skills to develop.

A significant part of our brain is dedicated to controlling our body, not just to knowledge and thinking. Those portions of our brain largely develop alongside us actually moving and practicing motor skills.

You could learn technique and what you’re not supposed to do as long as you have all the prerequisite motor skills relate to that information. If you are missing the prerequisite motor skills then you will not be able to.

That last part is where many of these “Absolutely not” answers are grounded.

Just like many physical things, not really.

A huge part of your brain is dedicated to motor skills and hand eye coordination. You aren’t going to improve or learn these things until you actually do them. It’s neurological, you can’t move a muscle you don’t have neurological connections for, it’s a learned skill. And you cannot learn it without actually doing it and making those connections.

Imagine never letting a baby crawl, and you just teach them about crawling, walking, running…etc once they’re old enough to understand. But they have never moved yet in their life.

They would essentially be disabled, none of the neural pathways necessary for the movement they need to do have been developed. These would need to develop from scratch, by struggling and failing.

Everyone here that says yes and then mentions practice is not getting your question.

The spirit of your question would be reading about it and understanding the theory and then dropping yourself in the middle of a lake. And either you learned and you swim to shore or you drown.

I’m sure most of the people here that are mentioning practice would understand that you would just drown and that you would not actually have learned how to swim.

This really is the truth.

The gap is almost insurmountable still, for many people and organizations, but the gap is narrowing thanks to the hard work Microsoft puts in.

Samesies

Moving/copying/reading/deleting tonnes of tiny files isn’t significantly faster on an ssd because the requirements for doing so are not limited by HDDs in the first place.

You mean the physical actuator moving a read/write head over a spinning platter? Which limits its traversal speed over its physical media? Which severely hampers its ability to read data from random locations?

You mean that kind of limitation? The kind of limitation that is A core part of how a hard drive works?

That?

I would highly recommend that you learn what a hard drive is before you start commenting about its its performance characteristics. 🤦🤦🤦

For everyone else in the thread, remember that arguing with an idiot is always a losing battle because they will drag you down to their level and win with experience.

This is like asking for a source for common sense statements.

HDDs are pretty terrible at random IO, which is what reading many small files tends to be. This is because they have a literal mechanical arm with a tiny magnet on the end that needs to move around to read sectors on a spinning platter. The physical limitations of how quickly the read right head can traverse limits it’s random I/O capabilities.

This makes hard drives, abysmal, at random I/O. And why defragmenting is a thing.

This is common knowledge for anyone in it and easy knowledge to obtain by reading a Wikipedia page.

SSDs are great at random I/O. They do not have physical components that need to move in order to read from random locations they generally perform equally as well from reading any location. Meaning their random I/O capabilities are significantly better.

These are all holes in the Swiss cheese model.

Just because you and I cannot immediately consider ways of exploiting these vulnerabilities doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are not already in use (Including other endpoints of vulnerabilities not listed)

This is one of the biggest mindset gaps that exist in technology, which tends to result in a whole internet filled with exploitable services and devices. Which are more often than not used as proxies for crime or traffic, and not directly exploited.

Meaning that unless you have incredibly robust network traffic analysis, you won’t notice a thing.

There are so many sonarr and similar instances out there with minor vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild because of the same"Well, what can someone do with these vulnerabilities anyways" mindset. Turns out all it takes is a common deployment misconfiguration in several seedbox providers to turn it into an RCE, which wouldn’t have been possible if the vulnerability was patched.

Which is just holes in the swiss cheese model lining up. Something as simple as allowing an admin user access to their own password when they are logged in enables an entirely separate class of attacks. Excused because “If they’re already logged in, they know the password”. Well, not of there’s another vulnerability with authentication…

See how that works?

Please to see: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415

Someone doesn’t necessarily have to brute Force a login if they know about pre-existing vulnerabilities, that may be exploited in unexpected ways

Fail2ban isn’t going to help you when jellyfin has vulnerable endpoints that need no authentication at all.

Jellyfin has a whole host of unresolved and unmitigated security vulnerabilities that make exposing it to the internet. A pretty poor choice.

https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415

Fill balloons full of lube and throw it at them

You can’t really host your own AWS, You can self-host various amalgamations of services that imitate some of the features of AWS, but you can’t really self-host your own AWS by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you’re thinking with something like localstack, that’s not what it’s for, and it has huge gaps that make it unfit for live deployment (It is after all meant for test and local environments)

No, most definitely not, and it… Sucks.

I just wanna sit down and play Minecraft or something again.

Or peach 🍑 or splash 💦

Kind of dumb really, I hate censorship.

The hard part is in the scripting, the retries, the back off, automation, queuing and queue management…etc

At that point I’m implementing my own bootleg TubeArchivist 😅

Oh it’s definitely an easy to read DB. But that’s still beyond the point IMHO.

If you can’t reconstruct the state of your files without 3rd party software to interpret them, then they are not in an archive format.

One should be able to browse their data using OS native tools on an offline device push comes to shove.