Talk:916: Unpickable - Revision history

172.70.207.29: Added comment

2024-06-04T05:07:05Z

Added comment

Trogdor147 at 18:28, 7 September 2023

2023-09-07T18:28:39Z

Trogdor147 at 18:28, 7 September 2023

2023-09-07T18:28:06Z

Kvarts314 at 07:55, 1 April 2022

2022-04-01T07:55:28Z

Beanie: rubik's cubes are so baaad

2021-05-04T11:16:48Z

rubik's cubes are so baaad

172.69.208.136 at 15:48, 3 November 2020

2020-11-03T15:48:53Z

Lupo: Undo revision 186443 by 172.69.69.238 (talk)at least it was a honest vandal: edit note: "replaced content with..."

2020-01-26T21:24:54Z

Undo revision 186443 by 172.69.69.238 (talk)at least it was a honest vandal: edit note: "replaced content with..."

172.69.69.238: Replaced content with "I really don't think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash. Liquid nitrogen wouldn't do it, and I doubt canned air is that cold. ~~~~"

2020-01-25T02:37:09Z

Replaced content with "I really don't think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash. Liquid nitrogen wouldn't do it, and I doubt canned air is that cold. ~~~~"

Undergroundmonorail at 20:15, 6 April 2019

2019-04-06T20:15:02Z

172.69.170.40 at 23:32, 24 November 2018

2018-11-24T23:32:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 4 June 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	::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. 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)		:::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)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :: 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)
 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}}
-::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)
 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}}

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ::: 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)
 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}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 1 April 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:
	: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)		: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. 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 4 May 2021
Line 14:		Line 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}}		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)		: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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 26 January 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~I really don~~'~~t think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash~~. ~~Liquid nitrogen wouldn~~'~~t do it~~, ~~and I doubt canned air~~ is ~~that cold~~.	+	2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22\|<u>{{Color\|#707\|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[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)

−	[[Special:Contributions/~~172~~.69.69.~~238~~\|~~172~~.69.69.~~238~~]] 02:37, ~~25 January 2020~~ (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.
		+
		+	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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 25 January 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin~~'. '~~''[[User:Davidy22\|<u>{{Color\|#707\|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22\|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25~~, ~~17 April 2013 (UTC)~~	+	I really don't think canned air is going to make a safe lock brittle enough to easily smash. Liquid nitrogen wouldn't do it, and I doubt canned air is that cold.
−	~~: 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~~	+	[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.238\|172.69.69.238]] 02:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
−
−	~~::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.~~
−
−	~~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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 6 April 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:

	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}}		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)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[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)
 ::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}}