Why It's Almost Impossible to Solve a Rubik's Cube in Under 3 Seconds | WIRED

[ch_ts]

Video about cubing in Wired's "Almost Impossible" series

 

[AegisSharp]

Ironically, the UWR is now 2.82 seconds.

 

[Tony Fisher]

The title is meaningless. It's like saying there's nearly an infinite number of stars.

 

[PapaSmurf]

It's a well researched video though. I liked it, even if the title is a bit wrong.

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

Technically, no proof exists that it's possible to solve Rubik's Cube in under 3 seconds

 

[cuber314159]

Technically, no proof exists that it's possible to solve Rubik's Cube in under 3 seconds

Except the people who have done it (obviously not with actual Rubik's Cubes)

 

[cuber314159]

Ironically, the UWR is now 2.82 seconds.

Who got that? Where?

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

Except the people who have done it (obviously not with actual Rubik's Cubes)

There is no proof that they have done it

 

[ch_ts]

Guys, don't get hung up over the title whether it's really actually impossible or almost impossible or nearly impossible or just difficult but possible... Anyway, if you're not familiar with the series, it's something like "Even against physical and physiological limits, humans are capable of impressive and amazing things." I like how the guy actually attempts and trains in the activities in his videos, and I enjoyed the interviews with Tom, Tyson, and Feliks. The other videos in the series are worth checking out too.

 

[Apolo]

The name is not important, the video is actually pretty good for a 4 Millions + subs channel.

 

[AegisSharp]

Who got that? Where?

I saw it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/bqiw7d

However, it looks like he has now deleted the video.

 

[pglewis]

"Almost impossible"

 

[pglewis]

Kidding aside, this is a surprisingly good video for mainstream coverage.

 

[Tony Acevedo]

Max Park had a sub-3 solve once, but it was a re-solve, so now we know its possible

 

[Ronxu]

Leave it to SS forums to get caught up on the most minor detail when the video itself is insanely good and overall a massive net positive in terms of visibility and growth of the sport.

 

[pglewis]

Leave it to SS forums to get caught up on the most minor detail when the video itself is insanely good and overall a massive net positive in terms of visibility and growth of the sport.

We're an exacting bunch, it should come as no surprise .

But yeah, it's nearly impossible to find anything mainstream that doesn't contain errors and perpetuate myths. In 15 minutes I can't recall a single mistake in this production, hats off for research and fact checking.

 

[Etotheipi]

It was a good video. I really like that he actually learned how to solve the cube and talk to experts, but in some parts he kind of threw more intuitive methods like Roux under the bus by saying how the key to being fast was algs, and didn't talk at all about the intuitive parts of a solve.

 

[TNL Cubing]

Really great video, I found this myself the other day in my recommended, surprisingly good for mainstream media.

 

[Caleb/spooderskewb]

Ironically, the UWR is now 2.82 seconds.

By who

 

[EMI]

Technically, no proof exists that it's possible to solve Rubik's Cube in under 3 seconds

If you accept that it's possible to perform R U in under three seconds, then you have to accept that it is possible. There is a small, but non-zero chance of a two-move scramble appearing at a competition, which makes it, by definition, possible.

By the way, I like the video a lot