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***
one of his counting solves was a 4.99, that's a counting 4What’s a counting 4
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.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 pointAnd 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.