# Explain cubing topics as if you were talking to a non-cuber



## Matt11111 (Dec 11, 2019)

So in the past few weeks, I've had a handful of people ask me whether magnetic cubes are allowed in competition or if they're considered cheating or whatever. I basically said that there's never been a level playing field in competitions since people bring their own cubes from home, so the quality of the puzzles people used varied wildly even before the advent of magnets. The same way you wouldn't tell someone using, like, a MoYu AoLong in 2014 "hey buddy you can't use that cube, little Timmy is using a Rubik's brand so we're gonna have to ask you to get another cube" at a competition, you wouldn't say "sorry, Jimmy hasn't magnetized his cube so no one's allowed to use magnets at this competition."

But that got me thinking. How would you guys explain cubing topics like this to a non-cuber if you were asked these questions? This basically works like those games that flooded the off topic forum back in the day (yikes my bad fellas). I'll start by giving a topic to explain, and then the next person would talk about it as if they were talking to someone who doesn't cube, then they'd also leave a prompt for the next person. So let's get this started.

Next: Why a 9x9 isn't technically any harder than a 7x7


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 11, 2019)

How blindfolded works


----------



## gruuby (Dec 11, 2019)

I turn, I solve
I turn, I solve


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 11, 2019)

Explaining that you use algorithms and intuition rather than working out how to actually 'solve' the cube


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 11, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> Explaining that you use algorithms and intuition rather than working out how to actually 'solve' the cube


So the cube has 54 stickers, yeah? I solve them by turning faces and matching up, say, red to red, green to green, etc, without help. But once I get to the 6th side, I can’t really do it without help, as any turn that’s isn’t on the last side will break what I’ve done up. So I use sequences of memorised moves which do certain things on the cube to solve the last side. If I get stuck on any other side, I can also use those sequences of moves to help me out, knowing what they do, and what they don’t do.


Spoiler



I know, so wrong


Explain why parity happens on even layered cubes.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 11, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> Explain why parity happens on even layered cubes.


Except 2x2


----------



## Shaun Mack (Dec 11, 2019)

did any of you read the rules for this thread lol


----------



## White KB (Dec 11, 2019)

Well, you see Jimmy, parity happens because as you're twisting and twisting the cube, say a 4x4, and what happens is you start solving the outer pieces. Why you get parity, little Jimmy, is because there are _internal_ pieces that make up for it. For example, on a 3x3 we have a thing called the "H" permutation which takes all the edges on one layer (not "side") and moves them around 180 degrees. In fact, what's actually happening is the algorithm is switching _two pairs_ of _two edges each_, making four pieces you move around. On a 4x4, parity is the same, except one of the pairs of "edges" is visible and one isn't. Therefore, Jimmy, you should understand fully why parity happens on a 4x4, 6x6, 8x8, etc. OK?


Spoiler: Jimmy's Response



I don't get it.
*sigh* At least I tried...


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 11, 2019)

You didn’t leave something for a cuber to explain, also nobody‘s done Mat111’s one yet.


----------



## Matt11111 (Dec 11, 2019)

What a mess


----------



## kubesolver (Dec 11, 2019)

Next: Why a 9x9 isn't technically any harder than a 7x7 

So nxn cubing is like cooking.

2x2 is like Cooking for yourself. It's relatively easy.
3x3 is like Cooking for your family. Kinda similar but requires more skill and knowledge.
4x4 is like Cooking Christmas dinner for you and your extended family. You need to know much more and be better in logistics of cooking.
5x5 is like Cooking in a little restaurant. You need to know much much more about a lot of things, how to handle multitasking, delegating some work etc. 
6x6+ Once you know how to make a dinner for 100 people you also know how to make a dinner for 1000 people. It just takes more time and resources.


Next: Can't you just cheat to win a competition?


----------



## Tabe (Dec 11, 2019)

kubesolver said:


> Next: Why a 9x9 isn't technically any harder than a 7x7
> 
> So nxn cubing is like cooking.
> 
> ...


This went a totally different direction than I would have but the analogy works. Well done.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 11, 2019)

kubesolver said:


> Next: Why a 9x9 isn't technically any harder than a 7x7
> 
> So nxn cubing is like cooking.
> 
> ...


Well you see little Timmy, in our organization we have a thing called rules. Have you heard of rules befor? Little Timmy: No my mom doesn’t have any. Me: Well Timmy, you see cheating is not something that is particularly favored and it’s against the rules. If you cheat, you will be disgraced and shamed. For example take Nazar Lenyshen. He cheated in a comp and this is what happened to his profile:
as you see Timmy, if you cheat shame will be brought to you forever.
Next: Why are there different puzzles if it was only meant to be the 3x3?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 11, 2019)

I remember that guy


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 11, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Well you see little Timmy, in our organization we have a thing called rules. Have you heard of rules befor? Little Timmy: No my mom doesn’t have any. Me: Well Timmy, you see cheating is not something that is particularly favored and it’s against the rules. If you cheat, you will be disgraced and shamed. For example take Nazar Lenyshen. He cheated in a comp and this is what happened to his profile:View attachment 11096
> as you see Timmy, if you cheat shame will be brought to you forever.
> Next: Why are there different puzzles if it was only meant to be the 3x3?


See here Jimmy, theres different puzzles to make for more diversity. If there was only 3x3 it would be pretty boring, and having lots fo other cubes makes it a lot funner.


Timmy: I don't get it

Next person: Why looking up a solution to a cube is not cheating (this drives me mad)


----------



## Chimp_Cuber608 (Dec 11, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Well you see little Timmy, in our organization we have a thing called rules. Have you heard of rules befor? Little Timmy: No my mom doesn’t have any. Me: Well Timmy, you see cheating is not something that is particularly favored and it’s against the rules. If you cheat, you will be disgraced and shamed. For example take Nazar Lenyshen. He cheated in a comp and this is what happened to his profile:View attachment 11096
> as you see Timmy, if you cheat shame will be brought to you forever.
> Next: Why are there different puzzles if it was only meant to be the 3x3?


Who is that?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 11, 2019)

Have a look here


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 11, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Next: Why are there different puzzles if it was only meant to be the 3x3?


Well, Rubik's brand wanted more money, so they made 2x2, 4x4, and 5x5, and then some people chopped those up and made things like 2x2x4s, and then the ball had started rolling, and lots of puzzles started being designed.

EDIT:I didn't see Gan 356 X's post, sorry. =P


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> Next person: Why looking up a solution to a cube is not cheating (this drives me mad)



Since a rubiks cube has a lot of pieces, it has a bunch of ways it can be arranged. If you were to just turn the sides, it would be impossible to solve it by random, as it would take about 1.3 trillion years, which is much too long. It's also not cheating because even if I know how to solve it, I have to do different things every time. I only learned the steps, not a bunch of turns you can do over and over to solve it automatically.

Next: Why peeling the stickers off _is _cheating


----------



## Matt11111 (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Since a rubiks cube has a lot of pieces, it has a bunch of ways it can be arranged. If you were to just turn the sides, it would be impossible to solve it by random, as it would take about 1.3 trillion years, which is much too long. It's also not cheating because even if I know how to solve it, I have to do different things every time. I only learned the steps, not a bunch of turns you can do over and over to solve it automatically.
> 
> Next: Why peeling the stickers off _is _cheating


I guess it's not the worst kind of cheating in the world. It's kinda like how some people will modify video games or use overpowered features just for the fun of it in single player experiences. Personally I love bumping up players' attributes to the maximum level in sports games to see what crazy numbers you can put up in a season with them. So just peeling the stickers off and having a solved cube is sort of like that kind of cheating.

But then saying you solved the Rubik's Cube when you really just rearranged the stickers is like going online in Mario Kart with an infinite blue shell or bullet mod enabled. The same way you don't improve as a player by enabling those mods (even if your rating would say otherwise), you aren't exhibiting any sort of skill when you do that with a cube. One time I went to a concert at my school, and before it started I was solving my 7x7. Once I was done, a guy behind me said "Our daughter just solved her first Rubik's Cube." And then he proceeded to say they actually peeled off the stickers. Conglaturation, you did nothing. This conversation is over. That's probably one of my biggest pet peeves, people who act like they accomplished something when the "solution" they came up with really isn't that clever at all.

Next: Why do you have to memorize the cube before putting on the blindfold?


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 12, 2019)

Matt11111 said:


> Next: Why do you have to memorize the cube before putting on the blindfold?


Because cubers aren't anymore psychic than your average person, we can't feel colors. 

Next: Why don't you just use a Rubik's brand, they're much better than your rip-off cube.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 12, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Because cubers aren't anymore psychic than your average person, we can't feel colors.
> 
> Next: Why don't you just use a Rubik's brand, they're much better than your rip-off cube.


This is how I would honestly explain this:


Rubiks Brand are absolutely s***

Explain why other random events like mirror block aren't events


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 12, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> This is how I would honestly explain this:
> 
> 
> Rubiks Brand are absolutely s***
> ...


Language.

There aren't those other events because the WCA is dumb it's to much of a hassle to have like 50 events, and to have mirror blocks, ghost cube, etc. would be boring because those are just 3x3 but more annoying to solve.

Next: iS ThAT A 10x10?!?


----------



## Matt11111 (Dec 12, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Language.
> 
> There aren't those other events because the WCA is dumb it's to much of a hassle to have like 50 events, and to have mirror blocks, ghost cube, etc. would be boring because those are just 3x3 but more annoying to solve.
> 
> Next: iS ThAT A 10x10?!?


Nope, it's a 9x9

But like honestly with really big cubes I wouldn't blame people for not wanting to get real close and count the layers

Next: How do your hands even move that fast?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

Matt11111 said:


> Nope, it's a 9x9
> 
> But like honestly with really big cubes I wouldn't blame people for not wanting to get real close and count the layers
> 
> Next: How do your hands even move that fast?



Cause I'm a superhuman.

Next: CoOl! A foUr CubE!


----------



## White KB (Dec 12, 2019)

Matt11111 said:


> I guess it's not the worst kind of cheating in the world. It's kinda like how some people will modify video games or use overpowered features just for the fun of it in single player experiences. Personally I love bumping up players' attributes to the maximum level in sports games to see what crazy numbers you can put up in a season with them. So just peeling the stickers off and having a solved cube is sort of like that kind of cheating.
> 
> But then saying you solved the Rubik's Cube when you really just rearranged the stickers is like going online in Mario Kart with an infinite blue shell or bullet mod enabled. The same way you don't improve as a player by enabling those mods (even if your rating would say otherwise), you aren't exhibiting any sort of skill when you do that with a cube. One time I went to a concert at my school, and before it started I was solving my 7x7. Once I was done, a guy behind me said "Our daughter just solved her first Rubik's Cube." And then he proceeded to say they actually peeled off the stickers. Conglaturation, you did nothing. This conversation is over. That's probably one of my biggest pet peeves, people who act like they accomplished something when the "solution" they came up with really isn't that clever at all.
> 
> Next: Why do you have to memorize the cube before putting on the blindfold?


Well , [Timmy I don't know why you think you're going to be a cuber if you don't even know _this_. *sigh*] you have to memorize it because you can't see it through a blindfold.

*Not even if it's a thin blindfold?*
You have to have a thick one.
*Oh.*

So you can't see through it, so you have to memorize it before.
Next: Cube theory (Even I don't know this, so it'll be tough)


----------



## White KB (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Cause I'm a superhuman.
> 
> Next: CoOl! A foUr CubE!


Ack. I got them out of order!
Oh well...

A four cube is actually a 2x2 , my dear friend. See, it has two layers. Whoa.
Cube theory is next (I'll try better not to mix it up this time.)


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

White KB said:


> Ack. I got them out of order!
> Oh well...
> 
> A four cube is actually a 2x2 , my dear friend. See, it has two layers. Whoa.
> Cube theory is next (I'll try better not to mix it up this time.)



4 Diemensions - 1 because there is no 4th dimension = 43 + quintillion = 43 quintillion.

ez

Next: You'Re chEaTinG!


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> 4 Diemensions - 1 because there is no 4th dimension = 43 + quintillion = 43 quintillion.
> 
> ez
> 
> Next: You'Re chEaTinG!


A corner twist is an unsolvable case jimmy

Next person:

Woah you must be good at math!


----------



## White KB (Dec 12, 2019)

Oh well, you caught me doing a corner twist so the cube could be solvable.
(Judge writes down "DNF" on scorecard)
Hey that wasn't against the--


----------



## White KB (Dec 12, 2019)

Well yes, I--
Shows paper in imagination land:
pi=(22–√9801∑k=0∞(4k)!(1103+26390k)(k!)43964k)−1

Shows paper in reality land:
2+2=ERROR: BEYOND THE LAWS of PHYSICS!
Unknown!

Next: Why Square-1 is solvable


----------



## Tabe (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Since a rubiks cube has a lot of pieces, it has a bunch of ways it can be arranged. If you were to just turn the sides, it would be impossible to solve it by random, as it would take about 1.3 trillion years, which is much too long. It's also not cheating because even if I know how to solve it, I have to do different things every time. I only learned the steps, not a bunch of turns you can do over and over to solve it automatically.
> 
> Next: Why peeling the stickers off _is _cheating


My answer would be more like: "you know how you sometimes have to memorize formulas for math tests and then use them on a test? It's similar with solving."


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 12, 2019)

White KB said:


> Well yes, I--
> Shows paper in imagination land:
> pi=(22–√9801∑k=0∞(4k)!(1103+26390k)(k!)43964k)−1
> 
> ...


Well jimmy, um, people wouldnt have made it if it wasn’t possible. Also e ^ I pi=1

next: how is parity?


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 12, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> e ^ I pi=1


No, e^iπ=-1 =P


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 12, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Well jimmy, um, people wouldnt have made it if it wasn’t possible. Also e ^ I pi=1
> 
> next: how is parity?


Parity is doing quite well, he didn't sleep that well last night, but some coffee woke him right up.

Next: why "I solved all of it except one sticker was wrong" is impossible.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 12, 2019)

White KB said:


> Well, you see Jimmy, parity happens because as you're twisting and twisting the cube, say a 4x4, and what happens is you start solving the outer pieces. Why you get parity, little Jimmy, is because there are _internal_ pieces that make up for it. For example, on a 3x3 we have a thing called the "H" permutation which takes all the edges on one layer (not "side") and moves them around 180 degrees. In fact, what's actually happening is the algorithm is switching _two pairs_ of _two edges each_, making four pieces you move around. On a 4x4, parity is the same, except one of the pairs of "edges" is visible and one isn't. Therefore, Jimmy, you should understand fully why parity happens on a 4x4, 6x6, 8x8, etc. OK?


(I'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about.) While this type of explanation of parity is very common—something along the lines of "you can't just swap two things, therefore parity must be caused by swapping hidden/invisible/imaginary/ethereal pieces"—it's also wrong. It's a fake explanation, where one strings together some keywords and hopes the result looks like it makes sense.



Spoiler: off topic, I guess, but this has to be said



The real answer doesn't involve internal pieces or the like. It's just as simple as observing that you can get a 2-cycle of edge pieces by doing a 2R slice move, then using 3-cycle comms to fix most of the shifted centres and edges. Therefore you can swap two edge pieces. Therefore you can get OLL parity, which can be seen as swapping two edge pieces within the same edge pair. In fact, by repeating this as many times as needed, with setup moves, you can get _any_ permutation of edge pieces, so this also explains PLL parity (note that swapping the UF and UB edge pairs is equivalent to a pair of swaps: UFl with UBr and UFr with UBl).

(In fact, rather than asking why big cubes have parity, consider the opposite question: why doesn't the 3×3×3, the original Rubik's Cube, have parity? But wait, what do BLDers mean when they say "parity"? So does it actually have parity? What if the term "parity" actually encompasses a wide range of situations that can happen on twisty puzzles? Have a think about that.)


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 12, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> (I'm not sure what this thread is supposed to be about.) While this type of explanation of parity is very common—something along the lines of "you can't just swap two things, therefore parity must be caused by swapping hidden/invisible/imaginary/ethereal pieces"—it's also wrong. It's a fake explanation, where one strings together some keywords and hopes the result looks like it makes sense.
> 
> The real answer doesn't involve internal pieces or the like. It's just as simple as observing that you can get a 2-cycle of edge pieces by doing a 2R slice move, then using 3-cycle comms to fix most of the shifted centres and edges. Therefore you can swap two edge pieces. Therefore you can get OLL parity, which can be seen as swapping two edge pieces within the same edge pair. In fact, by repeating this as many times as needed, with setup moves, you can get _any_ permutation of edge pieces, so this also explains PLL parity (note that swapping the UF and UB edge pairs is equivalent to a pair of swaps: UFl with UBr and UFr with UBl).
> 
> (In fact, rather than asking why big cubes have parity, consider the opposite question: why doesn't the 3×3×3, the original Rubik's Cube, have parity? But wait, what do BLDers mean when they say "parity"? So does it actually have parity? What if the term "parity" actually encompasses a wide range of situations that can happen on twisty puzzles? Have a think about that.)


Lol this thread is supposed to be a dumbed down version of explaining things.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Next: why "I solved all of it except one sticker was wrong" is impossible.



Because you only own stickerless cubes.

Next: Why your friend is lying when he says he solved it in 2 seconds


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 13, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Because you only own stickerless cubes.
> 
> Next: Why your friend is lying when he says he solved it in 2 seconds


Because the world record is 3.47 seconds. Maybe if you watched your friend solve but you have no time perception, it might seem like 2 seconds, which could happen if you go near a black hole I guess. 

Next: What is EO? (In a more general way, like, what it means for an edge to be oriented, not "when you have a yellow cross on top after F2L")


----------



## Hazel (Dec 13, 2019)

EO, or Edge Orientation, essentially describes how a particular edge piece (the one between two adjacent corners) is positioned. We call it "oriented" when it can be solved using only a specific set of turns, and "unoriented" or when it cannot be solved using that specific set of turns. Generally speaking, the more correctly-oriented edges, the better.

Next: How are you able to memorize so many algorithms?!


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2019)

Aerma said:


> EO, or Edge Orientation, essentially describes how a particular edge piece (the one between two adjacent corners) is positioned. We call it "oriented" when it can be solved using only a specific set of turns, and "unoriented" or when it cannot be solved using that specific set of turns. Generally speaking, the more correctly-oriented edges, the better.
> 
> Next: How are you able to memorize so many algorithms?!



Because I have a system that works for me to memorize efficiently, and I've spent a lot of time memorizing algorithms.

(although I don't know that many, I only know like 20 lol)

Next: Why so many abbreviations?


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 13, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Because I have a system that works for me to memorize efficiently, and I've spent a lot of time memorizing algorithms.
> 
> (although I don't know that many, I only know like 20 lol)
> 
> Next: Why so many abbreviations?


because we have to be letter efficient, as well as move efficient. 

Next: What a commutator is


----------



## Hazel (Dec 13, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Next: What a commutator is



A commutator is a type of algorithm that follows certain rules. If you know how they work, you can "invent" them on the fly. They're meant to be able to move just a couple pieces around the cube at a time.

Next: When you're doing a blind solve, how do you know when to stop?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Next: When you're doing a blind solve, how do you know when to stop?



Because I memorize what I need to do before I put on the blindfold. Once I've finished what I'd memorized, I stop.

(I've never done a successful blind solve lol)

Next: Why you can't "Scramble it really good"


----------



## CodingCuber (Dec 14, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Next: Why you can't "Scramble it really good"


Because a couple years back, some people did some research and figured out that you can solve any scrambles in 20 moves or less, we call it god’s number. For example, robots that solve a rubiks cube in under 1 second can calculate the fewest moves to do away from solved.

Next: What even is the point of going to a competition if you’re not good?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 14, 2019)

CodingCuber said:


> Next: What even is the point of going to a competition if you’re not good?



Because you get to hang out with other cubers and talk about cubing

Next: What's L R D' U M?!?


----------



## brododragon (Dec 14, 2019)

Matt11111 said:


> Next: Why do you have to memorize the cube before putting on the blindfold?



to make a virtual cube in their head.

Next: why does the type of cube matter


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 14, 2019)

brododragon said:


> to make a virtual cube in their head.
> 
> Next: why does the type of cube matter


make sure you respond to the latest post, that one was 2 pages back. =P


----------



## brododragon (Dec 14, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> make sure you respond to the latest post, that one was 2 pages back. =P


Whoops


----------



## Matt11111 (Dec 14, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Because you get to hang out with other cubers and talk about cubing
> 
> Next: What's L R D' U M?!?


That's an algorithm. Each letter corresponds to a different face or slice of the cube, and I turn it a different way depending on if there's an apostrophe or the number 2 in front of it.

Next: Do you think you could solve a 100x100 cube?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 14, 2019)

Matt11111 said:


> Next: Do you think you could solve a 100x100 cube?



If it existed, absolutely. I'd only need a couple thousand hours or so.

Next: I CoUld soLvE thE foUr cuBe


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Feb 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> If it existed, absolutely. I'd only need a couple thousand hours or so.
> 
> Next: I CoUld soLvE thE foUr cuBe


Guess what so can i.

move on.

Next: is that a 10x10


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 9, 2020)

Nope, count the number of squares.

Next: Shouldn’t the Rubik’s Brand be the best, since it is legit? And why do use you use these weird Silk, Dmn-50, Martian oil things, just get the legit Cube Lube.


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Feb 9, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Nope, count the number of squares.
> 
> Next: Shouldn’t the Rubik’s Brand be the best, since it is legit? And why do use you use these weird Silk, Dmn-50, Martian oil things, just get the legit Cube Lube.


no



thats it.


and i dont use these oilthings cause ic cant afford them

next: how do you count the squares?


----------



## ProStar (Mar 3, 2020)

You don't.

Why can't I solve the four cube?? It's so easy!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 3, 2020)

If you can’t solve it, it’s clearly not easy. Plus it has 3674160 possible combinations...

How can you muggle it so fast


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Mar 3, 2020)

Its called years of practice, and finger tricks.

Is tHat A trIAngle CuBe!?
Is that RuBiX cUbe GEL!?!


----------



## ProStar (Mar 3, 2020)

Yeah, it is! How did you know? You're so smart stupid!

I'm gonna mix it up really good!


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Mar 3, 2020)

I swear that is such a cliche! no matter how much you mix it up, it will be the same as if you only did half as much scrambling.
Me: accidentally twists corner.
Me: twists it back
Stupid idiot kid who is a non-cuber: YOU CHEATED!!!!!!!!


----------



## ProStar (Mar 3, 2020)

No, my cube just sucks

All of the cubes are from china you can't trust them!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 3, 2020)

And you know that how? And also, it works fine for me, it’s my cube, so I don’t really care.


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Mar 3, 2020)

I used to be able to solve a Rubix cube in like 5 seconds...
Oh really? what method did you use? ZZ? Roux? CFOP?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 3, 2020)

Haha I forgot to give a next, but so did you...


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Mar 3, 2020)

oof
Next: i have this Aisin brand cube, it sucks


----------



## ProStar (Mar 3, 2020)

You see, the reason people forget that type of stuff and then laugh when other people do it isn't exclusive to cubing. If you were on other forums you'd know that.

i have this Aisin brand cube, it sucks


----------

