Cubing Hot Takes, Opinions, and more!

I don't think OPA is 100% accurate either though.
What is this supposed to mean? On both square-1 and 4x4 if you trace properly and in the case of 4x4 , you have to get the slice count right, but I honestly don’t see how the argument that it isn’t ‘100% accurate’ could have originated. When you see top squanners get parity they obv mistrace and do the wrong solution, but that’s just human error and nothing down to the technique itself

It’s only not accurate if you don’t count your edges and slices right.
Edit: I realized that he was talking about CSP.
And what is going on here? You make a good point then follow it up with nonsense. No offence but neither of you probably know how csp works so you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation
 
What is this supposed to mean? On both square-1 and 4x4 if you trace properly and in the case of 4x4 , you have to get the slice count right, but I honestly don’t see how the argument that it isn’t ‘100% accurate’ could have originated. When you see top squanners get parity they obv mistrace and do the wrong solution, but that’s just human error and nothing down to the technique itself


And what is going on here? You make a good point then follow it up with nonsense. No offence but neither of you probably know how csp works so you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation
I was replying to a guy that was talking about OPA, who replied to a guy who they thought was talking about OPA when they were talking about CSP. I was talking about slices as in 4x4 slices, not squan slices. FYI I have no idea how parity works on squan, only 4x4 OLL parity.
 
What is this supposed to mean? On both square-1 and 4x4 if you trace properly and in the case of 4x4 , you have to get the slice count right, but I honestly don’t see how the argument that it isn’t ‘100% accurate’ could have originated. When you see top squanners get parity they obv mistrace and do the wrong solution, but that’s just human error and nothing down to the technique itself


And what is going on here? You make a good point then follow it up with nonsense. No offence but neither of you probably know how csp works so you shouldn’t be spreading misinformation
I meant not 100% accurate because of human error, because I thought that was what SpeakCuba meant in his original post. I don't really know how CSP or OPA work- I was just confused because SpeakCuba was arguing that CSP wasn't completely accurate due to human error but that OPA was 100% accurate.
 
It is perfectly fine to call Mo3s averages.

An average is just a number that best represents a whole. There are multiple different types of averages. Means (and there’s so many ways to do means as well, arithmetic, geometric, etc), Medians, Modes, etc.

I have seen people say something like “ Max got 7x7 WR Average” and other people going like “not an average, it’s a mean” and the thing is, the first person is still correct. A mean is just a type of average, they are not mutually exclusive.

Sources
IMG_0251.png
 
Back
Top