# The CubeCast 2.0 - Montage Released!



## Ranzha (Jan 6, 2015)

We know what you're thinking--this couldn't possibly happen, not in a million years!
Well, it did! The CubeCast is back!





Click here to go to our new site!

Many thanks to Andrew for supporting us in all this, to our previous hosts for providing a tough act to follow, to Sarah Strong for her amazing montage and archiving skills (without whom the Episodes page would be sorely incomplete), to Tyler Kerr in advance for a lot of great questions, and to Lucas Garron for allowing us to use a cubing.net subdomain!

Also many thanks to theCubicle.us for sponsoring the CubeCast!

*Listen to Episode 8 here:*
http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/cubecast2.0/CubeCast 2.0 Episode 8 - Season Finale.mp3

Show notes: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ny-SJzm2NI5k9uGAZKq8-rqhYafzGL53YFGUmJKc_Qc

Or, watch episode 7 here:


Spoiler











Happy cubing,

Waffo, Ranzha, and Meechay


----------



## stoic (Jan 6, 2015)

Nice work guys!
This might be a technical question -I'm not sure - but is there a way to access this without a computer?
I listen to tons of podcasts via iOS (I use Downcast app because the Apple one sucks so badly) but none of the Cubecasts show up anywhere to download this way (I think the old ones used to be listed in iTunes but they have disappeared)...


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 6, 2015)

ellwd said:


> Nice work guys!
> This might be a technical question -I'm not sure - but is there a way to access this without a computer?
> I listen to tons of podcasts via iOS (I use Downcast app because the Apple one sucks so badly) but none of the Cubecasts show up anywhere to download this way (I think the old ones used to be listed in iTunes but they have disappeared)...



Hi, we're still working iTunes stuff. As with all of our things, we had to start out fresh and lots of stuff is still in construction! We'll update everything when we get everything working (no ETA at the moment). But we'll announce it when it happens.


----------



## Sa967St (Jan 6, 2015)

Just finished listening to Episode 0. Well done, guys.


----------



## stoic (Jan 6, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> Hi, we're still working iTunes stuff. As with all of our things, we had to start out fresh and lots of stuff is still in construction! We'll update everything when we get everything working (no ETA at the moment). But we'll announce it when it happens.


OK cool; thanks for the reply


----------



## tx789 (Jan 6, 2015)

I have a suggestion in July or so you should make a 5th birthday special. Which I think should include all the pervious hosts and guests as possible. If you were to do this you'd have to use multiple recording sessions. You could also look at the question archive and have a much longer quick fire question round. This is just an idea that could be expanded on. 5 years in speedcubing is a long time. I think there should be a special episode to commenerate this milestone.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jan 6, 2015)

AWESOME

Hooray for good music, good hosts, and good content! Also it's great to finally listen to CubeCast episodes when they actually go out, as opposed to years later. I can finally ask quickfire questions!

Now you have to get Thom on during this little reign of episodes, because he's been in at least one episode for every season thus far and if he's not in this one I'll be disappointed. (also why does he look like a completely different person in every single photo/video ive ever seen of him)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 6, 2015)

It's 8 AM on a Tuesday.
After an hour-long drive to work in the snow, I made my coffee, sat down, and opened up my normal "start-of-the-day" tabs.

Quickly, I see the title, hosts, etc. and I'm instantly pulled in.

I put on my headphones, downloaded the episode, and took a sip of my coffee.

Now only four minutes in, I'm in love again;

Awkward. Irregular. Familiar. Nostalgic.
These are all words that describe the first four minutes of this episode to me, and I wouldn't have it any other way.


I'm looking forward to continuing my work day, sitting in the dark and listening to the cubecast.

Good to have this back, guys. Thanks for the feels.

Stachu


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Jan 6, 2015)

I shouted "23.19!" along with the podcast (around the 14 minute mark). I hope I was not the only one.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 6, 2015)

tx789 said:


> I have a suggestion in July or so you should make a 5th birthday special. Which I think should include all the pervious hosts and guests as possible. If you were to do this you'd have to use multiple recording sessions. You could also look at the question archive and have a much longer quick fire question round. This is just an idea that could be expanded on. 5 years in speedcubing is a long time. I think there should be a special episode to commenerate this milestone.



Oooooooooh



megaminxwin said:


> AWESOME
> 
> Hooray for good music, good hosts, and good content! Also it's great to finally listen to CubeCast episodes when they actually go out, as opposed to years later. I can finally ask quickfire questions!
> 
> Now you have to get Thom on during this little reign of episodes, because he's been in at least one episode for every season thus far and if he's not in this one I'll be disappointed. (also why does he look like a completely different person in every single photo/video ive ever seen of him)



Just so you know, the commercial break music was written by a cuber, Edward King. There's a link in the Credits section of the site where you can check out his stuff! He's pretty new at the whole music production thing, but he's released some awesome stuff so far.



StachuK1992 said:


> It's 8 AM on a Tuesday.
> After an hour-long drive to work in the snow, I made my coffee, sat down, and opened up my normal "start-of-the-day" tabs.
> 
> Quickly, I see the title, hosts, etc. and I'm instantly pulled in.
> ...


<3



ViolaBouquet said:


> I shouted "23.19!" along with the podcast (around the 14 minute mark). I hope I was not the only one.


YAAAAAASSS
I can't take credit for it though; I got the idea from Mollerz' post last year about the record. Glad to know someone gets the reference!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 6, 2015)

Uploaded a small blooper clip from pre-show and commercial break! Check it out http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes.html


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Jan 6, 2015)

Yay for CubeCast <3


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 6, 2015)

I was wondering about cubecast the other day, glad to see it's up and running again.



megaminxwin said:


> Now you have to get Thom on during this little reign of episodes, because he's been in at least one episode for every season thus far and if he's not in this one I'll be disappointed.



Am down with this.


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Jan 6, 2015)

I love cubecast!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 7, 2015)

Hey Guys, our next guest is current NAR record holder for 3x3 and 2014 US Champion, Collin Burns! If you have any questions for Collin, any thought provoking questions that you'd liked discussed on the show or anything that needs a lengthy discussion, or just to send us some love, send us an email at [email protected]. 

We're also trying to bring back an quickfire questions as well. They are short answer, back to back questions for our guests or the hosts about anything. This is just a way to get to know us better. Email us any quickfire questions to [email protected] with the subject line *Quickfire*.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 7, 2015)

Episode 00 of the CubeCast 2.0 has been uploaded on YouTube!
Watch here:





By doing this, we aim to allow listeners an alternative method of access to the podcast without having to download it from our website. Also, subscribing to the CubeCast Podcast channel will enable subscribers to be notified of and have access to episodes as soon as they are released.

We're gearing up to record Episode 01 in the next few days. Stay tuned!


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 7, 2015)

Just listened to episode 0! GJ guys, I really enjoyed it!


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 7, 2015)

You got my LL wrong 

Oh well.

Thanks for a new episode though


----------



## Me (Jan 7, 2015)

I listen to about 16 hours of podcasts per week, this is a welcomed addition on my list. Looking forward to more!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 8, 2015)

We're going to be recording this weekend with *Collin Burns*, US 2014 Champion and Current 3x3 NAR Holder. If you have anything to ask Collin please please please email us by January 10th. [email protected] for questions, comments, and suggestions.

Also the quickfire question pile is growing thanks to people, but the more questions we have the more fun the show is going to be! Email us quickfire questions for the hosts and Collin as well to [email protected] with the subject line *quickfire*.

Thanks and stay tuned for more episodes!


----------



## timeless (Jan 8, 2015)

lol are u sure memyselfandpi got the skewb wr or was that suppose to be a joke?


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 16, 2015)

*Episode 1 released!*

Show notes: clicky

New to the show is LISTENER TAGLINES! If you haven’t noticed, our taglines under our logo changes every time the page is loaded. That’s where listener taglines come in. We want you, our loyal listeners, to send us Taglines through [email protected] . If it makes us laugh we’ll put on the site, and if we like it enough, we’ll even say it on air!

In other news, we have gotten some outside help in term of RSS and iTunes, despite this, we have little to no ETA on when we’ll get RSS set up. But we have someone on board so rest easy knowing we’re working on that for you!

Please send in listener and quick fire questions for our next episode with Noah Arthurs.
In the next episode we will be announcing some big things, stay tuned.
*Please say who the quickfire questions are for!* (We've learned our lesson from this ep) We'd really appreciate it!

Lastly we’re proud to announce that we’ve partnered up with theCubicle.us to bring you a better listener experience. Thanks to theCubicle.us, we’re able to finally give out prizes to all our loyal listeners and in the future promocodes and apparel. In the meantime, we’d like to just say thanks to theCubicle.us for helping us out!


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jan 16, 2015)

timeless said:


> lol are u sure memyselfandpi got the skewb wr or was that suppose to be a joke?



Yeah didn't you hear them?! Jay Mcneill IS memyselfandpi, so yeah. =p


----------



## megaminxwin (Jan 17, 2015)

Nice!

Mitch is the only one who got my name even vaguely right. Tomas is pronounced like Thomas, and with Macadam, the stress is on the second syllable.

Also damn, Aneurin Hunt completely out-questioned me. This is officially war.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 17, 2015)

Some (hopefully) constructive criticism on this episode, mostly involving prep:

- Maybe others will disagree, but I find it a bit offensive and xenophobic to not even attempt to pronounce some parts of names and instead talk about how weird/hard to pronounce they are. People are often understanding if you get it wrong (people screw up names in professional news all the time), especially if it's a name from a language you aren't fluent in. It's worth trying at least, and much better than going on a tangent on how hard that name is to pronounce. This may not always be possible, but some research on pronunciations wouldn't hurt either. 
- I kind of cringed at the homeschool jokes. Collin explained why being homeschooled worked really well for him, and I got the sense that this was not acknowledged at all when the jokes were made, making it seem like a personal attack. It was also kind of beaten to death.
- Not so much a critique on the show, but stuff said about Worlds 2015 at the end was quite uninformed and unbased, and it just irked me after everything before this. Brazil is a relatively new community that is growing incredibly fast (among other South American communities), with several 100+ person competitions every year, so saying that this competition is being hosted in a cuber-remote location (can't remember the exact wording used) isn't exactly true. It's definitely no Europe/West Asia/North America, but if we don't hold competitions in new locations, how can we truly expect to be a world organization?

I feel like most of this could have been better with more prep before recording. Personally, I'd like to see really good shows less frequently than rushed ones every week.

EDIT: From a style point too, I feel like this show needs an "anchor," in a sense, with the others providing color commentary. Andrew and Thom definitely had defined roles, with Andrew taking the lead on all the stories they went through, Thom providing more of the color to the discussion. I often feel like this show has three Andrews more often than not, and as a listener, it kind of feels like the same person talking to me the whole time.


----------



## pdilla (Jan 17, 2015)

Snagged. Can't wait to listen!


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jan 17, 2015)

Aww, that was cute


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 17, 2015)

*The CubeCast 2.0 - Episode 1: Collin Burns released!*

Is Collin homeschooled? I think I missed that bit.

I'm glad you've brought it back. Episode 00 was insane.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 17, 2015)

ye we really need lots of feedback. We don't know what people like to hear. It's really hard to cater to them if they're not expressing their thoughts on the matter so thanks for criticism. We need it.

Also make sure you send your questions in for *Noah Arthurs* to our email [email protected].


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 17, 2015)

I personally don't think you should cover country records. Continental and World for sure but if you get into the habit of all records then take a couple of months off then you'll spend far too long on them IMO.

Return of the puzzler?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 17, 2015)

We don't really mind taking the time to acknowledge even NRs. It's still a big deal if you think about it especially to countries that don't even have WR/CR under their belts.

But we'll see.



cube-o-holic said:


> Return of the puzzler?



Thanks to theCubicle.us the puzzler will be returning this upcoming episode with Noah Arthurs, so listen out for that and you may even win a prize.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jan 17, 2015)

Yeah, the joking about Collins homeschooling got old extremely fast.

Also, Waffo, pleeeeaaaassseeeeee lower your audio levels. The peaking was driving me insane.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 17, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Yeah, the joking about Collins homeschooling got old extremely fast.
> 
> Also, Waffo, pleeeeaaaassseeeeee lower your audio levels. The peaking was driving me insane.



Yeah, EP 0, my levels are lower than expected so I upped it up. It was too much this ep, but I think I may have found my medium. We're still learning so thanks for the feedback.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jan 17, 2015)

Number of North American Homeschoolers with sub 6's: 2
Number of North American non-homeschoolers with sub 6's: 0

That's all I'm saying....


----------



## kcl (Jan 17, 2015)

XTowncuber said:


> Number of North American Homeschoolers with sub 6's: 2
> Number of North American non-homeschoolers with sub 6's: 0
> 
> That's all I'm saying....


I like your logic but...


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Jan 30, 2015)

When will episode 2 come out?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 30, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> I like your logic but...
> 
> View attachment 4863



I'd rather have dead people than no people.


----------



## Torch (Jan 30, 2015)

Any chance of montages for Season 2 and Season 3?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 30, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I'd rather have dead people than no people.



Really? Why?

(Like, would you really rather come home and see dead people instead of no people?)


----------



## mitch1234 (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> When will episode 2 come out?



We encountered a major technical issue during the recording of episode 2 and because if it we will have to re-record the episode with Noah. It is uncertain when we will get the next episode out.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jan 31, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Really? Why?
> 
> (Like, would you really rather come home and see dead people instead of no people?)



Hey, it means that there _were_ people, so I can find other people in the world. It means I'm probably not alone. If everyone's dead, then I can get to work on trying to make more people using the dead people's DNA.

If there are _no_ people, I'm kind of ****ed.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 31, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Really? Why?
> 
> (Like, would you really rather come home and see dead people instead of no people?)



Its not like we have no living people. We are a more successful planet than the others in our solar system because we have life.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 31, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Its not like we have no living people. We are a more successful planet than the others in our solar system because we have life.



Your statement didn't involve living people. You just said you'd rather have dead people than no people.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 31, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Your statement didn't involve living people. You just said you'd rather have dead people than no people.



Sorry for being unclear. In conclusion, even though our planet has the most dead people, at least we HAVE people.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 31, 2015)

Stefan said:


> (Like, would you really rather come home and see dead people instead of no people?)



What if you live at the funeral directors which you own?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 31, 2015)

cube-o-holic said:


> What if you live at the funeral directors which you own?



Depends on the situation. If I expected to see those people alive but they just got murdered, I'd still rather see nobody.


----------



## DGCubes (Feb 7, 2015)

Any word on episode 2? I know I can't be the only one impatiently excitedly waiting for it!


----------



## mitch1234 (Feb 7, 2015)

DGCubes said:


> Any word on episode 2? I know I can't be the only one impatiently excitedly waiting for it!


As stated on the previous page of this thread we had some issues with recording episode 2 so we will have to re-record the episode, we don't know when it will be out.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Feb 7, 2015)

I wonder if Noah feels like Rowe now?


----------



## aashritspidey (Feb 16, 2015)

Bump.
Any word on episode 2 yet?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Feb 16, 2015)

aashritspidey said:


> Bump.
> Any word on episode 2 yet?





mitch1234 said:


> As stated on the previous page of this thread we had some issues with recording episode 2 so we will have to re-record the episode, *we don't know when it will be out*.



So I guess wait for them to post?


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Feb 16, 2015)

They said they finished recording it again a day or two ago and said it should be out very soon.


----------



## DGCubes (Feb 16, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> They said they finished recording it again a day or two ago and said it should be out very soon.



Ooooh, great!!! I've really been needing it lately...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 16, 2015)

Really? You *need* to listen to a podcast about Rubik's Cubes?


----------



## JediJupiter (Feb 16, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> Really? You *need* to listen to a podcast about Rubik's Cubes?


C'mon, it's just a saying


----------



## mitch1234 (Feb 16, 2015)

aashritspidey said:


> Bump.
> Any word on episode 2 yet?



It will be out by tonight.


----------



## Coolster01 (Feb 16, 2015)

So far with the first episode:

- You guys should've talked more about Cale's NAR other than just "Yeah, we were all expecting it and whatever".
- It is a 1/243 chance for all three decimals to be the same in a 6 person group, Ranzha, not 1/729.


----------



## megaminxwin (Feb 16, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> Really? You *need* to listen to a podcast about Rubik's Cubes?



My GP prescribed me 10 hours of CubeCast a week. If I don't, my mind will start deteriorating. I'd like some new episodes so that there's at least some variety.

Try to be sensitive, god.



mitch1234 said:


> It will be out by tonight.



Awesome.


----------



## DGCubes (Feb 16, 2015)

megaminxwin said:


> My GP prescribed me 10 hours of CubeCast a week. If I don't, my mind will start deteriorating. I'd like some new episodes so that there's at least some variety.



Precisely! 

Maybe I did word that incorrectly though.


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 17, 2015)

Are these going to be on itunes at some point?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 17, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> Are these going to be on itunes at some point?



probably. we need someone with some RSS know-how to be honest. 

In other words if you have RSS know-how and would like to work with us. Shoot us an email at [email protected] we'll feature you as a team member and what not.


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 17, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> probably. we need someone with some RSS know-how to be honest.
> 
> In other words if you have RSS know-how and would like to work with us. Shoot us an email at [email protected] we'll feature you as a team member and what not.


Awesome! The fact that I don't even know what RSS is(Programming Language?), means I probably can't help.


----------



## megaminxwin (Feb 17, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> Awesome! The fact that I don't even know what RSS is(Programming Language?), means I probably can't help.



Really Simple Syndication. You publish something, the RSS "feed" updates automatically, and RSS "readers" check the feed every so often. If there's an update, they notify you. It's a really fantastic way of seeing new posts without having to go check all the time.

These are the things I know of RSS.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 17, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> - It is a 1/243 chance for all three decimals to be the same in a 6 person group, Ranzha, not 1/729.



But it's 1/729 for them to be the same particular digit.

You're trying too hard.

EDIT: Episode is done and uploaded; announcement very soon.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 18, 2015)

Episode is up! Check it out!

Show notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a_WlqQkrXBuWB0EbJmAzCi5krMBOgyk5yM_w1mnrxUo/edit
Video (audio starts 30s in, sorry):


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Good episode. I guess I sent my question to the wrong place!


----------



## Stefan (Feb 18, 2015)

The puzzler was harder than I expected.



Spoiler: Solution



I had to use the hint that you're asking for "the" optimal split, meaning there's just one. That clarifies the ambiguity of whether they have to use full dollars or can use cents (must thus be cents) as well as what to do in case of uncertainties. If someone knows they'll get either 0¢ or 2¢ if they vote against me, clearly I can buy their vote by offering them 2¢ (they can't get more and it beats the expected value), but 1¢ might be enough (matches the expected value and beats the minimum). Fortunately, using the former rule leads to many optimal splits (John gives 1¢ to the third-youngest and 2¢ to each of three of the five oldest and keeps the rest) while using the latter rule leads to just one, so that must be it.

John gives 1¢ each to the third-youngest, the fifth-youngest, and the two oldest, and keeps the rest.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 19, 2015)

Stefan said:


> The puzzler was harder than I expected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are actually two correct answers, after doing the simulation again. This isn't quite right.


----------



## Coolster01 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Puzzler Solution*

So do the other 7 people vote? So you need 4/7 to be majority? Or what?

EDIT:

After about an hour, this is my solution, assuming that John votes and you need 4/8 votes to win and you can use cents:



Spoiler



Note: Shafted = pay 0 cents.

Suppose that the robbers are named by letters, with the oldest robber in each scenario being Robber A. I'll list the robbers in order of youngest to oldest for each case:

In a two-robber case (John, Robber A), John always keeps the cash. Robber A has no leverage whatsoever, since he'll never have superior force to remove the captain. So, we would say here that Robber A would be shafted because John could win optimally by giving him no money whatsoever.

In a three-robber case (John, Robber B, Robber A), John only needs one vote. Robber B wants to get rid of John so he can be in the advantageous two-robber case. Robber A wants to AVOID that, so the John easily buys Robber A's vote with one cent -- the status quo is maintained, and Robber B gets shafted.

In a four-robber case (John, Robber C, Robber B, Robber A), John still only needs one vote (a tie means no superior force, which means the status quo is maintained and John wins). We again will ask our standard question: "If John loses the vote, then who gets shafted?" -- well, if the captain loses, it's a three-robber case, which means Robber B gets shafted. So the John easily buys Robber B's vote with one gold coin, and the status quo is maintained. Result: Robbers A and C would be shafted, B would be given one cent, and John would get the rest.

In a five-robber case (John, Robber D, Robber C, Robber B, Robber A), John needs TWO votes to avoid losing power. So we ask ourselves, once again: "If John loses the vote, then who gets shafted?" -- Robbers A and C (as determined above, in the four-robber case). So, you’d want to pay Robbers A and C one cent each to make them vote for you. Therefore, robbers B and D would be shafted.

In a six-robber case (John, Robber E, Robber D, Robber C, Robber B, Robber A), John needs two votes to avoid death. So, we ask, "If John loses the vote, then who gets shafted?". Well, as determined above, it would be robbers B and D shafted. So, you can easily win their vote by giving them just one cent. Therefore, Robbers A, C, and E would be shafted.

In a seven-robber case (John, Robber F, Robber E, Robber D, Robber C, Robber B, Robber A), John needs THREE votes to avoid death. So, we ask, “If John loses the vote, then who gets shafted?”. As determined above, A, C, and E would get shafted. So, you’d want to pay A, C, and E one cent each in order to get your vote. Therefore, robbers B, D, and F would not be paid at all, or in other words would be shafted.

In the desired eight-robber case (John, Robber G, Robber F, Robber E, Robber D, Robber C, Robber B, Robber A), John needs three votes, yet again, to avoid death. (Reminder: This is because he will obviously vote for it, making it (1+3)/8 = 4/8, and as described earlier, a tie means no superior force, which means the status quo is maintained and John wins.) So, we would then ask, “If John loses the vote, then who gets shafted?”. As determined above, robbers B, D, and F would be shafted if he lost the vote. So, you can easily get their vote by simply paying them one cent each and John can keep the rest. Therefore: Robbers A (the oldest), C, E, and G would be shafted; robbers B, D, and F would each get one cent each; and John would keep the rest.

So:
John: $7,999,999.97
Next youngest: $0.00 
Next youngest: $0.01
Next youngest: $0.00
Next youngest: $0.01
Next youngest: $0.00
Next youngest: $0.01
Oldest: $0.00


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 19, 2015)

You can use cents.

All eight team members vote.

A majority of votes in the proposer's favour is required to enact the proposer's split.

An optimal split is one that guarantees John Johnson keeps his life while John takes as much money as possible.


----------



## Coolster01 (Feb 19, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> You can use cents.
> 
> All eight team members vote.
> 
> ...



So does that mean that you need 5 out of 8 to vote in favor to enact the proposer's split? Because I have been assuming 4 out of 8 need to vote in favor to enact the proposers split... whoops.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 19, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> So does that mean that you need 5 out of 8 to vote in favor to enact the proposer's split? Because I have been assuming 4 out of 8 need to vote in favor to enact the proposers split... whoops.



Yes, there needs to be a majority.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 20, 2015)

Spoiler: My solution



A is oldest, down to H, Johnny.
Each will vote yes if they will get something better than what they might get if they vote no.
Number denotes how many cents they get. 'X' denotes everything else after the cents are taken away.

If 1 person: AX

If 2 people: AX B0
A will vote no unless he gets everything.

If 3 people: A0 B1 CX
B votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 4 people: A1 B2 C0 DX
A votes yes or he gets nothing. B votes yes or he gets 1.

If 5 people: A2 B0 C1 D0 EX
A votes yes or he gets 1. C votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 6 people: A0 B1 C2 D1 E0 FX
B votes yes or he gets nothing. C votes yes or he gets 1. D votes yes or he gets nothing. Only one best case for F.

If 7 people: A1 B2 C0 D0 E1 F0 GX
A votes yes or he gets nothing. B votes yes or he gets 1. E votes yes or he gets nothing. Note that G can choose either B or D to get 2 and still get majority vote.

If 8 people: A2 B0 C1 D0 E2 F1 G0 HX
A votes yes or he gets 1. C votes yes or he gets nothing. E votes yes or he gets 1. F votes yes or he gets nothing.

This is probably better done in a chart but this should explain it well enough I hope.
So two cents go to A and E each, 1 cent to C and F each, and Johnny gets $7,999,999.94.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 20, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> Spoiler: My solution
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ding ding ding, a winner is you!
This was actually the only correct answer; I dun goof'd with the second answer I tried.

PM'd you.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> Ding ding ding, a winner is you!



Her answer is wrong.



sneaklyfox said:


> A is oldest, down to H, Johnny.
> Each will vote yes if they will get something better than what they might get if they vote no.
> Number denotes how many cents they get. 'X' denotes everything else after the cents are taken away.
> 
> ...



That's the split that B would propose, but not necessarily the outcome. As B is not offering A more than A would get otherwise, A might vote "no" and B might get killed.



sneaklyfox said:


> If 3 people: A0 B1 CX
> B votes yes or he gets nothing.[/spoiler]



C doesn't need to offer 1 to B. Offering 0 is enough, as "0" is better than "0 or death".

Her end result is wrong as well.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 20, 2015)

The only wrong thing is that actually any two of A, B, D, or E could be offered 2 cents and still vote yes because B or D would get 2 or 0 if Johnny dies so they probably wouldn't take a chance on getting 0.

As for A voting no, causing B's unnecessary death, if this is the kind of premise we have in the problem then it's unsolvable because every odd-oldest person will vote no and every even-oldest person will vote yes. Then H (Johnny) will die and he cannot guarantee his life, even if he offers everything to G, G can still choose to vote no.

In other words, I work on the premise that the vote is yes if you get better than what you expect to get or if you are offered everything. This is his safest bet.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> The only wrong thing is that actually any two of A, B, D, or E could be offered 2 cents and still vote yes because B or D would get 2 or 0 if Johnny dies so they probably wouldn't take a chance on getting 0.



That's wrong as well, yes. Didn't bother mentioning it because it was irrelevant.



sneaklyfox said:


> As for A voting no, causing B's unnecessary death, if this is the kind of premise we have in the problem then it's unsolvable because every odd-oldest person will vote no and every even-oldest person will vote yes. Then H (Johnny) will die and he cannot guarantee his life, even if he offers everything to G, G can still choose to vote no.



No, it does work. I suggest you try it. Two persons is the only unstable situation.

You yourself btw already did use this everywhere else, by offering people 1 more than they'd get otherwise because you knew that offering them the same wouldn't guarantee their yes.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 20, 2015)

Stefan said:


> You yourself btw already did use this everywhere else, by offering people 1 more than they'd get otherwise because you knew that offering them the same wouldn't guarantee their yes.



Yes, I know this. Offering the same would not guarantee their yes. Offering more does guarantee a yes. We have to assume though that whoever is offered everything will say yes, or Johnny will never live (as I said above). Since we assume that there IS a solution this must be the case or else his safest bet.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> We have to assume though that whoever is offered everything will say yes, or Johnny will never live (as I said above).



Wrong.

Why don't you just try it?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 20, 2015)

I did it again now based on the uncertainty that B will live.


Spoiler: Final solution



A is oldest, down to H, Johnny.
Number denotes how many cents they get. 'X' denotes everything else after the cents are taken away.

On the assumption that there is no guarantee if one is offered the same amount...
If 1 person: AX

If 2 people: AX B0
This is B's safest bet though there is no guarantee he will live.

If 3 people: A0 B0 CX
B votes yes or he risks losing his life at the next turn.

If 4 people: A1 B1 C0 DX
A votes yes or he gets nothing. B votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 5 people: A2 B0 C1 D0 EX
2 can be offered to either A or B who votes yes or gets nothing. C votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 6 people: A2 B0 C2 D1 E0 FX
2 must be offered to either A or B who votes yes or risk getting less. C votes yes or he gets 1. D votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 7 people: A2 B0 C0 D2 E1 F0 GX
2 must be offered to either A or B who votes yes or risk getting less. D votes yes or he gets 1. E votes yes or he gets nothing.

If 8 people: A2 B0 C1 D0 E2 F1 G0 HX
2 must be offered to either A or B who votes yes or risk getting less. C votes yes or he gets nothing. E votes yes or he gets 1. F votes yes or he gets nothing.

This is almost the same answer as before except your options are limited. You give 1 cent to C and F each, 2 cents to E, and 2 cents to either A or B. This will satisfy either assumption. Johnny still keeps $7,999,999.94 for himself.



Edit: So my original answer was still correct.
Edit2: And I still think it's more reasonable to assume that your vote is yes if you are offered everything. No unnecessary loss of life, you know.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

Thank you 

Now you have a mistake in the 6 people case, where you overlooked the option to offer 2 to both A and B, and 0 to C.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 20, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Thank you
> 
> Now you have a mistake in the 6 people case, where you overlooked the option to offer 2 to both A and B, and 0 to C.



Oh yes, I did do that when I worked it out on paper but when I typed it up I forgot what I was thinking and left that out.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

Sorry, I should have made clear that that's the *first* error. Your answers for 7 and 8 people are wrong as well.

And I just saw your edits:



sneaklyfox said:


> Edit2: And I still think it's more reasonable to assume that your vote is yes if you are offered everything. No unnecessary loss of life, you know.



That would be a bias for others, which the puzzler explicitly says they don't have.

And again, the same is true if their options are for example:
yes => 1 cent
no => 1 cent
Here, 1 cent *is* everything they can get. And if they did have something against unnecessary loss of life, you wouldn't need to offer 2 cents! But you do offer that.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 21, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Sorry, I should have made clear that that's the *first* error. Your answers for 7 and 8 people are wrong as well.
> 
> And I just saw your edits:
> 
> ...



Yes, I know. It follows through to 7 and 8. I did that originally in my paper. Didn't have time to write out that that was so before dinnertime. But generally I still stick with my original solution. No, it's not a bias for others. It's just stupid. Imagine if you were offered all $8M. That's not a bias for other people. It's just logical since you cannot possibly get more than that. It just means you are happy with how much you're getting. Anything that's more than expected is of course something you would vote yes to, but they can't expect to get more than the maximum amount.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 21, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> Yes, I know. It follows through to 7 and 8. I did that originally in my paper. Didn't have time to write out that that was so before dinnertime.



So did you, on paper, finally arrive at my solution then? (The one I presented first but dismissed because there were several optimal splits)



sneaklyfox said:


> No, it's not a bias for others.



Yes it is.



sneaklyfox said:


> It's just logical since you cannot possibly get more than that.



In a 1 cent vs 1 cent situation, *you also cannot possibly get more than that*. And yet you agree that a "yes" costs 2 cents. You're inconsistent.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 21, 2015)

Stefan said:


> So did you, on paper, finally arrive at my solution then? (The one I presented first but dismissed because there were several optimal splits)


If it's the one that's still there on page 7 then no, I think I had some other answer because 1 cent is not enough.



Stefan said:


> Yes it is.


No it isn't.



Stefan said:


> In a 1 cent vs 1 cent situation, *you also cannot possibly get more than that*. And yet you agree that a "yes" costs 2 cents. You're inconsistent.


Yes, you can get more because the maximum amount is actually $8M so technically you could get more if someone offered you more. Perhaps you would be happier if I said *you cannot possibly be offered more* though actually no one would offer you more.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 21, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> If it's the one that's still there on page 7 then no, I think I had some other answer because 1 cent is not enough.



Yes, that one. Though I'll quote it here because I think you misread:


Stefan said:


> John gives 1¢ to the third-youngest and 2¢ to each of three of the five oldest and keeps the rest



So is that what you got?



sneaklyfox said:


> No it isn't.



Yes it is. Particularly since your justification was "No unnecessary loss of life, you know". How is that not a bias for others? Their own life is not at stake here, so it must be someone else's.

If it was me and I'd get $8 million whether I say yes or no and I have no bias for or against the other guy, I'd flip a coin or something like that. My life is not affected, the money I get is not affected, and whether or not I get "the maximum possible" is not affected. The two options are worth exactly the same to me. I'm **not** guaranteed to say yes.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Feb 21, 2015)

How to change a subject 101: By the Subject Changer said:


> By looking at a somewhat random argument in a thread, whether it is relative or not, it is appropriate to ask a question that might tickle everyone's minds.




Could someone tell me why pigs like to roll in mud?


Also, this was an entertaining show  Nice job. Brings a lot back.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 21, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Yes, that one. Though I'll quote it here because I think you misread:
> 
> So is that what you got?


Ok, when I looked back at p.7 to check what you had written again I just read your final solution which was "John gives 1¢ each to the third-youngest, the fifth-youngest, and the two oldest, and keeps the rest." which was your answer because you believed there to be only one correct solution. But yes, I see where you're getting the 2 cents to each of three of the five oldest.



Stefan said:


> Yes it is. Particularly since your justification was "No unnecessary loss of life, you know". How is that not a bias for others? Their own life is not at stake here, so it must be someone else's.


Ah, I was saying that partly in jest. I didn't seriously mean that A would vote no because of the loss of life. If I started to consider ethics and more, I (if I were oldest, for example) would not vote yes for anything less than what I think is a decent amount and 1 or 2 cents is negligible. But all the money is all the money there is. That has nothing to do with other people.

If we truly believe there to be one correct answer then probably we should just go with this assumption: Anyone votes yes if they think they will not be offered more. This means that in the 2-person case, A votes yes. You can keep offering 0 to everyone because everyone thinks, "I'm not going to get any money anyway" except the next youngest person. Then Johnny gets all the money to himself with 7 yes votes and 1 no vote.

Edit: Now that my kids are in bed (finally), I can give a bit more time to look at your solution. Why do you give the 1 cents to 5th youngest(4th oldest) and two oldest if it can be any three of the oldest 5? What about the 3rd or 5th oldest?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 21, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> If we truly believe there to be one correct answer then probably we should just go with this assumption: *Anyone votes yes if they think they will not be offered more.* This means that in the 2-person case, A votes yes. You can keep offering 0 to everyone because everyone thinks, "I'm not going to get any money anyway" except the next youngest person. Then Johnny gets all the money to himself with 7 yes votes and 1 no vote.



Hmm, at first I didn't find such an affinity for "yes" rational, but it would help end the procedure earlier. And since time is money... ok 



sneaklyfox said:


> Edit: Now that my kids are in bed (finally), I can give a bit more time to look at your solution. Why do you give the 1 cents to 5th youngest(4th oldest) and two oldest if it can be any three of the oldest 5? What about the 3rd or 5th oldest?



That's because those are two separate answers stemming from two separate simulations. One for each of the two possibilities I mentioned:



Stefan said:


> If someone knows they'll get either 0¢ or 2¢ if they vote against me, clearly I can buy their vote by offering them 2¢ (they can't get more and it beats the expected value), but 1¢ might be enough (matches the expected value and beats the minimum).



That 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 X solution is for the latter case, where they can be bought with 1¢. If it's unclear why 1¢ might be enough, i.e., why 1¢ can be considered better than "0¢ or 2¢", imagine you're given this choice:

Option 1) You get 1 billion dollars.
Option 2) You either get 2 billion dollars or nothing (50/50 chance).

I think pretty much everybody would take option 1 (unless they have a particular need for more than 1 billion dollars, like they'll die tonight unless they pay 1.5 billion for a new heart, or you want to feed the poor people all around the entire world so you actually need even more). The expected value is the same, and one billion should be more than you'll ever need. A second billion isn't that valuable. This is an extreme example to make it intuitive, but it's true in general: The first $x are more valuable than the next $x because a fixed amount of money gets less important the more money you already have.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 21, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Hmm, at first I didn't find such an affinity for "yes" rational, but it would help end the procedure earlier. And since time is money... ok


Yes, to end the procedure earlier.



Stefan said:


> That's because those are two separate answers stemming from two separate simulations. One for each of the two possibilities I mentioned:
> 
> That 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 X solution is for the latter case, where they can be bought with 1¢. If it's unclear why 1¢ might be enough, i.e., why 1¢ can be considered better than "0¢ or 2¢", imagine you're given this choice:
> 
> ...



Oh, I perfectly understood why 1 cent might be enough. I forgot I had to go through the simulation again to change the split proposals starting from the 6-person case. Now I get your second answer as well. You could have explained it better the first time (p.7). But I'm not positive that a sure 1 cent is better than 0 or 2 with 50/50 chance. If it was me, I'd toss a coin to see whether I should vote yes or no and risk double or nothing. Imagine that instead of it being a billion dollars which makes you feel like it's important, it's a pebble. Take away the fear of risk. It's the same as offering someone who's going to get nothing nothing which isn't enough for a yes vote.

All this to find out that Waffo, Ranzha, and Mitch don't already know the supposed answer?

I should be cubing instead of this...

Or better yet, sleeping to save up energy for taking care of 5 sick little kids...

Edit: Remember, these guys have just been involved in bank heists. They're probably risk takers.


----------



## JemFish (Feb 23, 2015)

Hey, this looks pretty cool. I just finished listening to the Collin Burns episode and was surprised that he's only a year older than me (no, I'm not 8). Will listen to the Noah Arthurs episode tomorrow.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 15, 2015)

Sorry about the delay but hey, it's the CubeCast.

anyway, we're proud to announce probably our latest episode with Kit Clement! Please check it out in the episodes page!

Also under Season 3 is a montage compiled by the ever lovely montage master herself, Sarah Strong. Many thanks to her!

As for reminder, please send in all feedback, questions, taglines etc to our email. We also have a puzzler so send in all submissions us as well for a chance to win $5 to theCubicle.us.

Our next guest is Jayden McNeill, holder of both Skewb WRs, CRs for 2x2, Pyraminx, and Square-1 averages and one of the fastest solvers in Australia overall! Please stay tuned for that!

*Watch Episode 3 here:*


Spoiler











Episode 3 show notes.

*Check out Sarah's Season 3 montage here.*

Thanks for listening,

Ranzha, Waffo, and Mitch


----------



## Stefan (Mar 15, 2015)

So who of you is 20 years old and why are you already thinking about retirement?

(not even going to try, btw, not interested in learning how it works)


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 15, 2015)

Stefan said:


> So who of you is 20 years old and why are you already thinking about retirement?
> 
> (not even going to try, btw, not interested in learning how it works)



I'll be opening an IRA pretty darn soon. The more years to compound, the better off I'll be =)


----------



## charmrence (Mar 15, 2015)

Do you just mention random NRs on the podcast? Because you missed a few.


----------



## Kit Clement (Mar 15, 2015)

charmrence said:


> Do you just mention random NRs on the podcast? Because you missed a few.


This was recorded on February 28th, so NRs in the past two weeks will probably be mentioned in the next episode.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 15, 2015)

charmrence said:


> Do you just mention random NRs on the podcast? Because you missed a few.



These should have been accurate between the 13th and 27th of February. If results for competitions in that time period were posted after we recorded, there's no way we could have reported on them.


----------



## CAL (Mar 15, 2015)

You have forgot a hole bunch of NR's at Hessen Open on 21th and 22th


----------



## charmrence (Mar 15, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> These should have been accurate between the 13th and 27th of February. If results for competitions in that time period were posted after we recorded, there's no way we could have reported on them.



I realise that, but there were a few at the comp where the clock WR happened, so that's why I was wondering.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 15, 2015)

Oh man we missed a lot. We'll make it up next episode.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 16, 2015)

Congratulations to Damian Bias for winning the Puzzler!

We will send solutions to the puzzlers upon request at [email protected].


----------



## megaminxwin (Mar 16, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> Congratulations to Damian Bias for winning the Puzzler!
> 
> We will send solutions to the puzzlers upon request at [email protected].



This puzzler was biased.

(lol) (kidding dont hurt me)


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 16, 2015)

It's really awesome to hear my continent described as "actually getting decent at a lot of things". Hopefully we'll have a lot more AfRs for you to talk about in future episodes.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Mar 17, 2015)

You guys truly are masters of pronunciation...


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 17, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> You guys truly are masters of pronunciation...



I'm so sorry he called you Melanie
argh


----------



## waffle=ijm (Mar 17, 2015)

I AM SO SORRY


----------



## sneaklyfox (Mar 17, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> I'm so sorry he called you Melanie
> argh





waffle=ijm said:


> I AM SO SORRY


----------



## Randomno (Mar 17, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> I AM SO SORRY



It's alright Julie.


----------



## Logiqx (Mar 18, 2015)

Great episode guys.

It made for good listening in my hotel room last night... business travel can be pretty tedious.

Looking forward to the rest of the season.


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Mar 19, 2015)

I heard that James Hildreth was appointed a "Canada Delegate" instead of "Candidate Delegate". And was like, "Huh? James is an American."

I guess I should turn my ears on.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Mar 19, 2015)

Who is the planned guest for next episode?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Mar 19, 2015)

Our next guest is Jayden McNeill, holder of both Skewb WRs, CRs for 2x2, Pyraminx, and Square-1 averages and one of the fastest solvers in Australia overall! Please stay tuned for that!

EDIT - You might know him as Ottozing here on the forums and his youtube https://www.youtube.com/user/ottozing


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 30, 2015)

We've been thinking about how we should go about reporting records that are set, and what we've noticed is there are a outrageous amount of national records set each week. At Singapore Open alone, there were 42 national records set by competitors representing Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Korea. Since recording the Noah episode, there have been hundreds and hundreds of national records set, and it doubt anyone would like to hear all of them.

We intend to report on all continental and world records. However, our main concern is reporting national records due to the sheer amount of time it will take us to research, and the time that such a report would occupy per episode.

Thus, we've had the following ideas as potential practices:

*1. Report all national records.*
This is what we have tried to do, our "current policy". I'm not sure why we missed so many for the Kit episode, but we did, and I feel very uneasy about it.
Reporting all national records ensures that every listener is aware of the improvement in results and the growth of cubing worldwide. Reporting all national records also allows the national record holders to be in the spotlight, from Wojciech Knott's Clock NRs for Poland (which are unbelievably close to the WR times) to the first Clock results for Bosnia and Herzegovina by Renato Stopic. Every NR breaker gets the chance to be recognised for getting the best official results in their country.

*2. Report all national records that are within the top x% of the world's results.*
Some would argue that reporting certain national records, like Leandro Vindu Kalemba's 24.27 3x3 NR single for Angola, would not demonstrate the global improvement in results and would not necessarily shine the best light on competitors from certain countries. By only reporting national records from people who rank in a top predetermined percentage of the world's solvers, we give credit to the people who have worked to achieve at a highly competitive level when compared to the rest of the world. Others would argue such a system would fail to reflect the growth of cubing worldwide.

*3. Report only national records suggested by listeners.*
With this system, if a national record is broken and no one submits it for report, we will not report on it. When making the show notes for each episode, we could include all or only some of the records submitted after being reviewed. If you want it on the show, you have to submit it. The problems with this system include the potential failure to showcase fast solvers not only in their own countries, but with respect to the world, as well as the potential failure to demonstrate cubing's growth worldwide.

*4. Report no national records.*
Rid ourselves of the national record problem entirely by never reporting them.

We would like listener input on this issue. Discussion can start here or in emails to us at [email protected].

Thanks, and we'll be recording soon,

Ranzha


----------



## Scruggsy13 (Mar 30, 2015)

I like to learn about new national records, but also would rather not have the first portion of the show dedicated to listing off hundreds of them. Personally, I feel that it would be nice to get input from national record holders/breakers (so obviously not me). I would be in favor of not having them in the show, but listed in the show notes, but then again, that is a lot of research for you three for a range of people who care about every national record set in a certain window, which might be very large or very small. I guess what I'm trying to say is that removing them from the show might be the best fix, and just having people who care about them looking them up for themselves.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Mar 30, 2015)

report all national records for only 3x3 and oh and bld. or only nxnxn records. whatever, the point of the suggestion is: dont report records for all events


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 30, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> report all national records for only 3x3 and oh and bld. or only nxnxn records. whatever, the point of the suggestion is: dont report records for all events



I wouldn't consider this to be fair.
Consider Wojciech Knott's Clock national records. His 5.34 single, now 4th in the world, is only 0.09 slower than the WR. In the same round, he also got a 5.39 single. If the last attempt of that average had been a 6.04 instead of a DNF(8.39), he would have gotten a WR average. That is something I find to be very impressive. Of course, it's not my decision alone, but using a system like yours would never allow results like these to be recognised for how insanely good they are.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Mar 30, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> I wouldn't consider this to be fair.
> Consider Wojciech Knott's Clock national records. His 5.34 single, now 4th in the world, is only 0.09 slower than the WR. In the same round, he also got a 5.39 single. If the last attempt of that average had been a 6.04 instead of a DNF(8.39), he would have gotten a WR average. That is something I find to be very impressive. Of course, it's not my decision alone, but using a system like yours would never allow results like these to be recognised for how insanely good they are.



seems to me like you are personally leaning more toward option 2. i dont so that doesn't really matter to me (also clock has my full contempt... its just so lol)

in order to truly be "fair" (according to a definition which says that fairness=equality) you would have to go with solution 1 or 4. or you could be unfair.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 30, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> seems to me like you are personally leaning more toward option 2. i dont so that doesn't really matter to me (also clock has my full contempt... its just so lol)
> 
> in order to truly be "fair" (according to a definition which says that fairness=equality) you would have to go with solution 1 or 4. or you could be unfair.



Personally, I would hate to do 1, wouldn't mind if we did 2, think 3 is very unfair, and think 4 is the best option in the interest of covering other stories.

Or we could get rid of the records section entirely and consider discussion about records to be bunched together with pre-guest news.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Mar 30, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> Personally, I would hate to do 1, wouldn't mind if we did 2, think 3 is very unfair, and think 4 is the best option in the interest of covering other stories.
> 
> Or we could get rid of the records section entirely and consider discussion about records to be bunched together with pre-guest news.



i think it would be best to just bunch them in with later discussion. that way the interesting/controversial/ground-breaking records are acknowledged and you have no obligations which could be broken.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 30, 2015)

How about ditching nationalities and instead do what speedcubing.com used to do, announce improvements in the top 10 of each ranking? Then you'd mention it if Erik got 5.56 in 3x3 (which you wouldn't if you only mentioned NRs).


----------



## megaminxwin (Mar 30, 2015)

5) National records that are significant enough for a mention. Decide by yourself.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 30, 2015)

megaminxwin said:


> 5) National records that are significant enough for a mention. Decide by yourself.



Define "significant enough". Of course we can't cover everything, but doing it arbitrarily is even less fair. If we decided what records we wanted to mention, then the feeling that certain records were left out becomes much more personal.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 9, 2015)

Okay after thinking about it, the best option is probably to just ditch national records entirely and only do continental and world records.

(have you recorded yet)


----------



## ottozing (Apr 9, 2015)

megaminxwin said:


> (have you recorded yet)



Recorded a week ago.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 9, 2015)

ottozing said:


> Recorded a week ago.



Okay cool. I shall wait impatiently.


----------



## Ranzha (Apr 17, 2015)

We didn't announce this yesterday, but the episode with Jay McNeill is out! =D Listen to it here: http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/cubecast2.0/CubeCast 2.0 Episode 4 - Jay McNeill final.mp3

Show notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vX1mEYuecutUR8J9BTZuxv5-z70JbsgCdT1PqDQoyK4/edit

It will be on YouTube very soon! This was recorded on April Fools' Day, and life (as well as recording issues) got in the way of getting this out in a timely manner and with good audio quality. We'll try our best next time.

Speaking of next time, our next guest is newly inducted WCA Board Member, Pedro Santos Guimarães! Send us your questions, as we're recording on Saturday!


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 17, 2015)

What I imagine is happening to Waffo during the Skewb discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJuKq6iQQMs


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 8, 2015)

After the long hiatus from making episodes the CubeCast has got some very exciting guests lined up. Please check out our episode with Pedro under episodes! There was no puzzler for this week but we hope to have them in episodes to come.

As always the CubeCast relies heavily on listener submission questions, and the past couple of episodes have been lacking, so even if your questions are extremely wacky or strange we would appreciate seeing them in our inbox at [email protected]

We’re doing a listener tagline raffle, if you would like to be entered into the chance of winning a $5 gift code to thecubicle.us all you have to do is just send us an email with your purposed listener taglines. Limit 1 entry per person, so give us the best tagline you can. All approved taglines will end up on the website and if we like it enough, we’ll feature it on the show, regardless if you win the prize or not. (Email or message the Facebook page if you have any question about this)

Stay tuned for your next episode (which we have already recorded and hope to have out soon) with Collin Burns and Antoine Cantin and keep a lookout for our next guest announcement on our Facebook page!

Make sure to send us your feedback, suggestions and questions to our email!

Thanks for listening!

Ranzha, Waffo, and Mitch


----------



## Torch (Jun 28, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> Gee, thanks.
> 
> I've _tried_ being smart and respectful by reporting some things that have happened. I'll never get there, I guess. >.<



I'm pretty sure that episode was recorded before the 0.58 thing happened.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jul 6, 2015)

What's the latest update on Episode 6?


----------



## dboeren (Jul 6, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> Hi, we're still working iTunes stuff. As with all of our things, we had to start out fresh and lots of stuff is still in construction! We'll update everything when we get everything working (no ETA at the moment). But we'll announce it when it happens.



Just a note, you don't actually need to be on iTunes to have a podcast feed. People may have an easier time finding you if you are, but it's mostly irrelevant. There are various free sites that can host a podcast feed such as Feedburner, or if you want something fancier with more handholding you can get podbean for $3 a month which isn't much.


----------



## mitch1234 (Jul 16, 2015)

Here is episode 6 with JRCuber! We are experiencing some issues with our site right now and the only way to listen to the episode is to click on the link which has the file, we will try to straighten out this issue as soon as possible that way the episode is view-able through the episode list. Our next guest for episode 7 will be with the one and only Anthony Brooks, and we plan to record the epsiode at US Nationals.
http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/cubecast2.0/CCE6JRCuberFinal.mp3


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 16, 2015)

mitch1234 said:


> Here is episode 6 with JRCuber! We are experiencing some issues with our site right now and the only way to listen to the episode is to click on the link which has the file, we will try to straighten out this issue as soon as possible that way the episode is view-able through the episode list. Our next guest for episode 7 will be with the one and only Anthony Brooks, and we plan to record the epsiode at US Nationals.
> http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/cubecast2.0/CCE6JRCuberFinal.mp3



Cool, are there show notes available for this? It's fun to follow along with them.


----------



## mitch1234 (Jul 16, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> Cool, are there show notes available for this? It's fun to follow along with them.



Yup, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_VghM6Deq3EN8xMOAjArZL99BclE5vllq4NRJ05a_38/edit


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Jul 16, 2015)

will this episode be uploaded to youtube?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 16, 2015)

You guys asked for feedback on the show, so I decided to give you some! Muahahahahaha

this show sucks. shame on the cubicle for sponsoring you.

lololol jkjkjk

In all honesty, I love listening to cubecast. You guys do a great job and it is a lot of fun to watch. Waffo u r just hilarious and you are my favourite cuber. Great work guys! Keep it up!


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 16, 2015)

Updated the OP with link to Episode 6 audio and show notes.

Enjoy everybody!

I fly back home on the 9th of August, so I intend to jump right into making CubeCast better 

Edit: Episode uploaded to YouTube! OP is edited to reflect this.

Watch Episode 6 here:


----------



## not_kevin (Jul 17, 2015)

15:43 yey recognition with my good name! <3 u gaiz

(but man, I'd love a 3 single on Square-1 )


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 17, 2015)

Awesome. Just a few small things:

- The competitor who gave me the scramble got it by getting the actual scramble for himself officially, not from video of others.
- The 0.58 would've been 4.21, not DNF.
- The pyraminx single WR was 6 moves because it was before move limits in comp existed. It was not a mistake in scrambling.


----------



## megaminxwin (Sep 12, 2015)

Any updates on new episodes?


----------



## mitch1234 (Sep 12, 2015)

megaminxwin said:


> Any updates on new episodes?



Just waiting for it to be edited.


----------



## Wilhelm (Sep 12, 2015)

*hands over a motivation cookie*


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 3, 2015)

Wilhelm said:


> *hands over a motivation cookie*



Just found this on my desk last week, thanks!

EPISODE 7 RELEASED!

It's actually been out for a week or so now, but hey.
Keaton Ellis and Drew Brads joined us shortly after US Nationals this year to talk about their cubing experiences at Nationals and in the past. Woo!

Listen here: http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes...0 Episode 7 - Keaton Ellis and Drew Brads.mp3
Show notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WSd3SYsxNKOI0DHZ956wlF-bTSv5EFIoUQw5Uga3y6E/edit?usp=sharing

Watch here:


Spoiler


----------



## biscuit (Dec 3, 2015)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 18, 2015)

SEASON FINALE RELEASED!

Download and listen on our website: http://cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/cubecast2.0/CubeCast 2.0 Episode 8 - Season Finale.mp3
Show notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ny-SJzm2NI5k9uGAZKq8-rqhYafzGL53YFGUmJKc_Qc/edit
View our Speedsolving.com post: https://www.speedsolving.com/cubecast-2-0-podcast-episode-08-series-finale/

Watch/listen on YouTube:


Spoiler











*Accepting Applications for New Cubecast Team Members*
Are you interested in helping make Cubecast better? We're looking for people to join our Cubecast team to make Cubecast the premier alternative cubing experience.
Over the past year, we've realised that moving forward, it will take more than just us to make sure the Cubecast operates (and doesn't just survive and limp along). As a result, we need your help to make Cubecast great! We are all pretty busy people. We need to have more members to help make everything easier and with the addition of 2 to 15 (lol) more members, our original promise of an episode every 2 weeks might become a reality.
The types of positions and areas of expertise we would like to fill going into next season:
Web Development
Public Relations/Social Media
Content Acquisition and Reporting
Graphic Design
Music

If this interests you, please read the full-length descriptions of our positions here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U3kTK-33Y_A192VMi0nypJz5nlYy7puLFaYX1VvPsmc/edit
*Apply here:* http://goo.gl/forms/YCdlmqXhig

*Other than that,* please give us feedback on how you think we did this season! We honestly have no idea how we're perceived and have no way of quantifying our reach in the community. Thanks a lot, and we'll see you in a few months!


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 18, 2015)

Sorry for double post, but it seems the episode 8 YouTube video has been flagged and temporarily removed for apparently violating YouTube's terms of service. We've appealed the decision and are awaiting a response.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Dec 18, 2015)

Can we apply for more than one role?

I'm going for graphic design, and potentially music.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 18, 2015)

CyanSandwich said:


> Can we apply for more than one role?
> 
> I'm going for graphic design, and potentially music.



Absolutely! Fill the form twice, it's fine.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Dec 18, 2015)

Boy, youtube seems to really be screwing things up recently. did you post scrambles in the description? Because that may have caused the video to be taken down.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 19, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> Boy, youtube seems to really be screwing things up recently. did you post scrambles in the description? Because that may have caused the video to be taken down.



The description was "Show notes: [link] Apply to be part of the Cubecast team: [link]".


----------



## TMarshall (Feb 15, 2016)

We are happy to announce that we have a montage of our most recent season of the Cubecast podcast. Thanks to Sarah Strong for making this for us. 
In other news, we will be starting our new season of the cubecast very soon! Our guest will be announced on February 22nd, and the episode will be up on March 4th. Get ready to submit your questions. Also, Christian Pizzasegola and I will be handling the PR portion of the Cubecast from now on. If you have any questions regarding the Cubecast, we will be the people to contact. (you can pm me through speedsolving, or contact us through the Cubecast Facebook page)

Here's the montage:

cubecast.cubing.net/episodes/Montages/CubeCast%202.0%20Montage.mp3


----------

