GAN 356 X
Member
It seems although he'll forever have th average and then maybe get back the single. Who knows. Congrats Feliks!
What’s a counting 4A counting 4, holy s***
What’s a counting 4
It's interesting that they round average times, but truncate single times. Is there a reason we still truncate times, other than the fact that all past times are to 2 decimal places?
I'm just never happyThat's insane. Just absolutely insane. I am happy when I average 5 on 2x2...
Solves used to calculate the average* are called "counting" because they "count" toward the average. In this case, Feliks had a 4.99 that counted toward the average, so a "counting 4".What’s a counting 4
And if Sean had faster time he would be sub Feliks. What's the point?If that 6.55 was a 6.51 then the average would be sub roux single
There is no real point I just noticed his average was really close to seans single and thought it was funnyAnd if Sean had faster time he would be sub Feliks. What's the point?
Reconstructions:
7.16
R2 B2 L2 U' L2 D' L' U F U2 F' R' D B U R F2
y // inspection
R2' F D F D2 // cross
y F U' F' R U' R' U R' U' R // 1st pair
y' U' L' U L R' U R // 2nd pair
R U' R' F U F' // 3rd pair
U' R U R' // 4th pair
U2 F U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' F' // OLL
U R U R' F' R U2 R' U2 R' F R U R U2 R' U // PLL
5.04
D2 L2 F2 D2 R2 F' L2 B' F' U' F' D' B D' B R U B' D2 U2
x y2 // inspection
U' R2' D R' D2 // cross
R U2' R' U L U L' // 1st pair
U' R' U2' R d' R U R' // 2nd pair
U' L U2 L' // 3rd pair
y' U R U' R' y' R' U' R // 4th pair
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // OLL
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U' // PLL
4.67
D2 B F2 R2 U2 B L2 D2 B2 L' F' R B' U L' R D' R' B
y z' // inspection
L' U' r' l U' l' R' U' R D // Xcross
y' U' U r U' r' F // 2nd pair
U' R' U R // 3rd pair
U R' F R F' // set up
U' R' F R F' // VLS
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 // PLL
6.55
R' B R L F' U' B' R2 U B U' L2 D F2 U D F2 U' R2
z' y // inspection
U' R' F D2 R' U R' D' // cross
L U L' // 1st pair
U' R U' R' U' R' U' R // 2nd pair
U' R U' R' U L' U' L // 3rd pair
U R U R' U' R U R' // 4th pair
U' R' F' r U' r' F r U' r' F2 R //OLL
R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R2 D U' R' U R D' // PLL
4.99
D2 F2 R B2 F2 D2 B2 R U2 L U R' F' U R' B F2 R F U2
x // inspection
U' R U2 R (U' D) // cross + 2 pairs set up
R' U R2 U' R' // inserts
y' R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R' // 3rd pair
y' U R' F R F' //set up
U R U2 R' F R U R' U' F' // VLS
y' x' R U' R D2 R' U R D2 R2 //PLL
This may be an argument for rounding to two decimal places, but it definitely isn't an argument for preferring round-to-zero over round-to-nearest or vice versa.It may be that you can't accurately measure to three decimal places with a stackmat. The displayed result may not always be the correct result for such small scales of time, and the uncertainty's magnitude is much higher.
I do think one of the arguments for truncating was for theoretical consistency with gen 2 stackmats. There are still some in use for competitions, I think - I noticed that there was an item in the WCA discussions (https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/issues/619) asking about how many are still being used for official competitions. In theory a gen 2 stackmat would turn over to the next hundredth of a second at the beginning of that hundredth, so if you truncate a time with 3 digits, you would get a consistent result with what would come from a 2-digit stackmat.This may be an argument for rounding to two decimal places, but it definitely isn't an argument for preferring round-to-zero over round-to-nearest or vice versa.