Talk:916: Unpickable

2026-05-27T14:01:04Z

47.151.65.120: Added comment

2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
: What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php 48.42 seconds]. See also below. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

:: r/wooosh

::I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC){{unsigned|184.11.73.88}}

:2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Looking at [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php speedcuber's results] I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Um, the 5x5 Rubik's cube group also has the 4x4 group as a quotient, the same way the 4x4 has the 2x2 as a quotient; just look at the cube minus the T-center tiles and central edges.
::: Of course, the ideal diversion would be a scrambled 1x1. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.208.136|172.69.208.136]] 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
::I've been cubing many different puzzles for years, and in my experience, 2x2s are easiest, 3x3s are a little harder, and every cube higher than that is the same difficulty, except the bigger ones take longer (meaning a 4x4 and 7x7 are the same difficulty, just 7x7s take much longer). [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::: I'd consider 5x5 an 4x4 to be slightly easier, since you can solve
the centers in a slightly easier way. [[Special:Contributions/47.151.65.120|47.151.65.120]] 14:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague ['''REDACTED'''], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones.{{unsigned|173.72.159.14}}

Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional? {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}}
:cubers tend to refer to sizes where all three dimensions are the same as just NxN. i don't know why, it's just convention. [[User:Undergroundmonorail|Undergroundmonorail]] ([[User talk:Undergroundmonorail|talk]]) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::Can confirm. I would just call it a 5x5, without even the "Rubik's cube" (because, you know, I don't think Rubik's even MAKES 5x5s; and even if they did, they would probably be shit). [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
:::Can confirm. Rubik's 5x5 is terrible. [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 07:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
:::A) Rubik's makes 5x5s, B) They're alright, although they do get stuck sometimes, and C) That 5x5 would easily nerd snipe me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.29|172.70.207.29]] 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

just saying that the cube should be a shapeshifting quad metaforfix {{unsigned ip|12.203.60.98|18:40, 21 May 2026}}

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:916: Unpickable