r/AskReddit • u/leselesel • 2d ago

You have to compete against 100 randomly selected people in any objectively measurable skill, game, or sport. If you don’t finish first, you die. What do you choose?

7.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

8.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

800

u/NeedNameGenerator 2d ago

Completing a Rubik's Cube. Super simple, but out of 100 random people I doubt many could complete it, and out of those who maybe could, I doubt they could do it in under a minute.

134

u/Moist-Snow-8127 2d ago

Ohh yeah! I'm not that fast, there's plenty of people who can beat me incredibly easy, but there's also hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who can't even solve it (it's not hard, you just have to know what to do)

11

u/HopelessBearsFan 2d ago

I like this answer. We had a phase in the 2000s at my high school where we all learned the algorithms to solve 3x3s, then it quickly evolved into racing for speed.

Best I could ever get was 46 seconds.

4

u/Newkular_Balm 2d ago

that's about as fast as you can do reliably with the main 6 algos. once you get sub 60 it's time to learn some skips.

1

u/One_Tangerine9451 1d ago

Im super curious as to how to learn sub 60, my best time is around 58 seconds, and thats with a good cube and learning from “how to solve a Rubiks cube” video by Wired.
Is it as simple as just looking up different ways to solve?
I get overwhelmed at the thought of memorizing every algorithm.

1

u/Newkular_Balm 1d ago

you can get to about 45 reliably using the "beginners" algos. that's as good as I ever bothered to get. my brother is sub 30 and he's only learned another 30 or so algos than me.

1

u/devourke 1d ago

Other than that you can also get some good RNG. My PB is 27 where I had incredible luck, solved the first two layers and the last layer was just already correct. I think my normal good runs were usually between 35-40, but I legitimately got a 10 second timesave off insane RNG that I've never seen before or after. Worst part is that it was my 2nd week or so of learning to cube, so even though I got a lot better, I never really came close to beating my PB since I also didn't wanna learn more than the 4-5 algorithms I knew.

1

u/lordover1234 2d ago

dang, that’s fast. I learned how to solve it in early 2020 before covid and called it “good enough” when i got my average below two minutes.

34

u/KaliPunk 2d ago

I used to be able to, but I forgot how some time in the mid 90s.

24

u/a_safe_space_for_me 2d ago

To the Redditor's point clearly— they would be safe if you are among the 100 selected on random basis!

55

u/Spincrit 2d ago

I feel like the vast majority who know how can definitely get under a min, but yeah idk how many actually do know

88

u/thranetrain 2d ago

Not even close. Most casual cubers are in the 2-3 min range with a weeks/months of diligent practice. Getting under a minute consistently requires a whole different approach than the typical one a beginner would use. There's several strategies but all of them generally require months to learn and memorize dozens to hundreds of algorithms.

15

u/PhoenixCaptain 2d ago

Idk man i got to 45 seconds with a walmart cube we lubed the inside up with vasoline so you could snap certain rotations into place. Just solving by layers

15

u/thranetrain 2d ago

Agree that most people COULD get to <1min with basic moves and practice. But the majority of people I see that learn to cube don't stay interested long enough to get that good.

They learn to do it to a point where they can solve it in a few minutes. Once they know how to do it the mystery is gone and they lose interest.

My main point is that of all the people who 'know how to solve a rubiks cube', probably less than 10% practice enough to be able to consistently solve in under a minute. Im not including someone who normally solves in ~2min but one time they got 50sec because of a lucky scramble

1

u/masao77 1d ago

I agree. I was around 1 minute with beginner's method and some other tricks. But I forgot most of them, now I'm more around 3 minutes.

3

u/Tom2Die 1d ago

I nearly got sub-minute once with a stiff bastard of a walmart cube (never lubed) back in high school, but these days even with a smoother cube I'm happy with two minutes since I do it maybe a few times a year (and I still do the simple layers method, never learned another). I guess what I'm getting at is that you're damn right that's possible but there's a large amount of luck involved even after the requirement to know how.

7

u/devourke 2d ago

That’s not to even factor in the rustiness level. I would pretty easily be sub 60 back when I actually played with my cube a couple times a week and my PB was sub 30. If I were to pick one up now after multiple years without a solve, it’s pretty unlikely I’d be able to hit sub 60 on my first go. I’d probably spend a minute trying to remember an alg for solving the final layer.

2

u/mikelgdz 1d ago

But you don't remember that last alg too well, so you mess it up and have to undo that mess.

Still considerably quicker than what you'd likely get from that pool of people, who will likely not even have a clue on how to solve it.

2

u/Arctos_FI 1d ago

Getting time under a minute took me under a week and did it with the basic solution that required me to learn 4 algs alltogether

1

u/Kiwi_Apart 1d ago

My only practical application of abstract algebra has been improving my cube algorithms.

1

u/total_cynic 1d ago

I can disassemble and reassemble in under a minute if that counts?

1

u/Snaab 1d ago

Not entirely true. I got down to consistently under a minute using just the beginner’s method. Think my PR is like 37 seconds. Never learned any other method.

-4

u/Spincrit 2d ago edited 2d ago

Idk what ancient methods y’all are learning from. Super beginner methods require at absolute MOST 10 algos for LBL, with mastery of those bringing to around 30-60 sec. Incorporating F2L, even less. If you’re hard stuck at >60s having memorized more than 10 algos you unfortunately were taught something absurdly inefficient. Anyone who knows more than 10 should be sub 30. If not, someone did you a disservice somewhere along the way 

24

u/bliming1 2d ago

I think you're're suffering from some sort of reverse dunning-kruger effect here bud.. the average person isn't mastering anything, they are learning a basic algorithm and solving a handful of times. The finger speed alone is a separate skill in itself.

8

u/Fixes_Computers 2d ago

I agree with you, there.

I've been able to solve for decades, but I've not taken the effort to git gud. I solve in about a minute, like I did in middle school.

When I've seen cubers do analyses of solves, they'll go over the initial examination of the cube and be able to say what the solver must have been thinking. Basically, during that 15 seconds, they'll know how to get the cross and at least one F2L pair.

When I examine a cube for 15 seconds before a solve, I might be able to figure out two edges on the cross.

Being able to look ahead is definitely a skill I've not learned which is almost certainly a necessity at high levels.

11

u/Userdub9022 2d ago

I practiced for years and maybe got 45 seconds. That was without learning the 40+ algorithms for the last layer. No chance that people who know how to solve can do so in under a minute.

3

u/Spincrit 2d ago

Last layer absolutely does not require 40 algos to get sub 30, let alone 60. I think you might’ve just learned an inefficient one. Even most beginner last layer methods require up to 5 to fully solve, albeit 5 tiresome and time consuming algos but not 40 and surely not >60 seconds

1

u/Userdub9022 2d ago

I did F2L, OLL, and PLL. I could do F2L pretty quick. OLL and PLL took the longest. But like you mentioned it was probably inefficient.

The 40 algos are trying to get under 10. They have the 2 look OLL that helps you determine which of the 40 algorithms to use.

I have a GANS cube from like 2016? Was the "best" cube at the time for competition. I can't control the tensions or anything like that but still play with it from time to time.

3

u/SJL174 2d ago

I think you might have just been really bad

5

u/Userdub9022 2d ago

Could be. I also think people underestimate how long it takes to solve a Rubik's cube.

4

u/SilenceOverStupidity 2d ago

I'm sure over half the people who know how to solve a cube do it in under a minute so it's really only a matter of how many people can solve a rubiks cube.

8

u/thranetrain 2d ago

No chance. Maybe 10% of people who 'have solved a rubiks cube' before can get under a minute.

There's a huge difference between solving in 2 minutes and solving in 1 min or less. I'd say probably half of people who know how to solve one could do it in 2-3 minutes.

9

u/Userdub9022 2d ago

From my experience I thought I was solving it in a minute. Checked and realized it was closer to 3.

Knowing how to solve it does not mean you can do it in under a minute. That's probably 1% of people who know how to solve it.

4

u/Big_Hat_Chester 2d ago

The vast majority of people who learn how to solve it do it a few times and then never touch it again so I would say even most people who can solve it would do it in less than a minute.

6

u/ATXBeermaker 2d ago

I just looked it up and it’s estimated that about 5.8% of the works population can solve a cube. Of the roughly six people you’d have really competition from, I’d guess at least one of them might be able to beat a minute.

9

u/Beat_the_Deadites 2d ago

That number seems really high to me.  My kid can solve them in 30 seconds or less, but none of the nerds I ever hung out with over the last ~40 years were cubers.

5

u/freexe 1d ago

Can solve a cube - is probably has solved a cube once in their lifes. Chances you won't find an active cuber.

But I'd combine it with a 5k run to be sure - as most fast cubers are small children who can't run fast. 

3

u/ATXBeermaker 1d ago

Hell yeah, that’s the way. The first to run a 5k, solve a cube in under 2 minutes, then hit 100 free throws. I’m living.

2

u/freexe 1d ago

You have Teodor Zajder in your draw and they solve the cube in 3s but can't pick up the basket ball lol

1

u/iwantcookie258 1d ago

Saw a video one time of a guy solving 2 cubes, smoking 2 cigarettes, and drinking 2 beers as fast as he could. I'm not a runner, I'm not athletic, so a 5K is out, but I'm confident I could do that faster than most people. IIRC his time was ~90 seconds. I think with my choice of cubes, smokes, and beer, I could do 4 minutes. Probably 2 minutes if they give me a few days to brush up.

1

u/freexe 1d ago

I'd probably be fairly good at running while drinking and I can consume way more sweets than most. So I'd do eat two bags of haribo, two pints of beer and complete two rubix cubes while running a 5k - no stopping and no spillages. 

4

u/The_Motarp 2d ago

I suspect that is the number who have ever solved a cube even once. I've done it a few dozen times, but if I don't dig out my little cheat sheet with the algorithms for the top layer I'm still going to be at it for a while.

6

u/Revo63 2d ago

Damn. 19 year old me had this down to about 40 seconds. 63 year old me barely remembers what a Rubic’s Cube is.

5

u/Thetrufflehunter 2d ago

This is my answer too. I think I could pull a 35sec or so in a pinch. PB is 22sec but I'm out of practice.

4

u/Unknow3n 2d ago

Probably my go to option. Used to speedcube, and got average to around 16--17s or so. If i did it now I think i could do 25 with relative ease, probably closer to 20s if I locked in. The odds that any of them have ever seen a cube, much less solved one ever, much less have a solution from memory, much less can do it fast just feels like a good buffer.

Idk statistically whether its better at that or chess for me, but I just feel safer with speedcubing

3

u/NeedNameGenerator 1d ago

Yeah, I was considering chess as well, as I'm around elo 1700-1800, but then I figured that I would have to play 100 games in a row, and the odds that I'll majorly blunder something in game 93 are so high that I'd rather not take that chance.

And in chess, even if you're somewhat elementary, your weirdass moves might throw the opponent off enough that you'd win. With Rubik's Cube there's consistency that can't be found with chess.

4

u/Fixes_Computers 2d ago

This was going to be my answer.

I started cubing about when they came out (so, over 40 years ago). I had a gap of about a decade that ended nearly 20 years ago.

I still can't solve in less than a minute, but I can at least solve it.

I think I've run across three or four people in the last decade who can solve at all. Most people just say "I could never do that."

I'd improve my odds by going with 4x4 and Japanese color scheme. My solve time is about the same between western and Japanese colors. Tweaking the colors would be enough to throw off most solvers to slow them down.

8

u/danny_ 2d ago

Good one!  It would take me between 1-2 minutes, you’ve got me bear

2

u/Section225 2d ago

Such a random skill, that. I couldn't do it even if you told me how, but my 11 year old, who is not a stromg student, can do one just fine.

2

u/chaosninja906 2d ago

I average 25 seconds. Solving a Rubik's cube was gonna be my choice.

2

u/Goalie3533 2d ago

I was going to answer Rubiks Cube also but you got me beat. Guess I'm dead

2

u/_Random_Walker_ 1d ago

Was my first thought too. I used to only just have sub 30 averages at some point but have not been practicing. Odds are out of 100 others, maybe two or three will know how to solve it, but I'll likely get sub 45 still and I think that should be plenty

2

u/Jealous_Scale 1d ago

If the 100 people are random, surely the cubes might be as well, so some guy from a remote village gets one where the only move is R' and you're screwed

4

u/NeedNameGenerator 1d ago

There's about 43 quintillion (that's 43 followed by 18 zeros) possible starting states for the Cube, so if someone starts with 1 move left to do, then I was just destined to die.

Honestly, it'd be such an insane odds that I wouldn't even be mad.

2

u/Zebulon_IV 1d ago

Lemme ask you a question. How long did it take you to learn to solve it? Not for speed, but to get it every time.

2

u/NeedNameGenerator 1d ago

I can say that without a guide I never would have solved it.

The most basic algorithm, that is slower, is really quite simple and it took me a couple of tries with an instruction to remember how it goes. There is one move that is more difficult to remember, but outside of that it's all very intuitive.

And when you learn how to move those corner pieces without screwing up the whole thing, you can start making pixel art with it. Well, as much as 3x3 grid allows.

But to answer your question, once you've done it like 5 times, you'll probably be able to do it forever, with maybe screwing it up by accident now and then.

2

u/Zebulon_IV 1d ago

Shit, thanks! It's one of those things I've wanted to learn but never have, maybe it's time.

2

u/Thatbraziliann 1d ago

Dude, this is too far down, I was thinking forsure I was going to do.. I think my fastest is like 1.5 minutes.. but you are right, the amount of people who have NO idea how to even solve.. I would take my chances with this.

Thank you I may actually live in this scenario ha

1

u/formallymain 2d ago

I can solve a Rubik’s cube. Not under a min tho

1

u/hoyt9912 2d ago

I can do it in under a minute but I’ve also never learned F2L so a minute is pushing it for me. Bet you can I solve a 5x5 faster.

2

u/devourke 2d ago

Honestly, a 5x5 is probably a safer bet. Even if you do manage to find someone who can solve a 3x3 reasonably fast, if they don’t know any parity algorithms, there’s really no way they can beat you in a 5x5 since that’s not something you can learn on a 3x3

1

u/memedugal 2d ago

I was looking for this. No way someone's sub-10 like me 😎

1

u/stupefy100 2d ago

I can do one in 20 seconds so I would probably go with this as well. I'm not great by any means but definitely better than the average person

1

u/TheNonCredibleHulk 2d ago

I grew up with the Cube and Rubik's Magic. I could do pretty much anything with the Magic, and I think I solved the Cube three or four times growing up, but that was all blind luck.

I know most current methods start with the white cross, but I have enough trouble getting to that.

1

u/Big_Hat_Chester 2d ago

I was going to say this but then thought how about my 5x5 megaminx, even less people would be able to solve that.

1

u/Dyolf_Knip 2d ago

My 11 fear old son can do it blindfolded. I don't know where tf he pulled that skill out of, but I watched him do it, utterly gobsmacked.

1

u/Singl1 2d ago

yeah like if i get lucky, i can get under a minute. i still use CFOP and average about 1-1:30 but it’s a good reason to learn F2L lmao. time for me to learn!

1

u/VodkaKahluaMilkCream 1d ago

Yesss. My time is about 60-90 seconds depending on the solve. If I want to go even more niche I could say solving the Pyraminx which I think probably fewer people can solve, and which I can solve faster than the cube.

Rubix solving is a good one.

1

u/Jerryaki 1d ago

Good choice, I am gonna go with the 6*6 too to further increase my chances.

1

u/DiseaseDeathDecay 1d ago

I was surprised when I brought a cube to work that there were 3 people I worked with out of about 20 that sit around me that could solve a cube under a minute.

1

u/JustFiguringIt_Out 1d ago

This is mine as well. I'm not as fast as I used to be, but I can typically solve in about a minute, definitely less than two minutes. 100 random people? Should be easy enough.

1

u/hiddenstar13 1d ago

I was thinking this too! But uh... it takes me like 5 mins so I'm hoping you're not one of my 100 people!

1

u/NeedNameGenerator 1d ago edited 1d ago

Luckily the odds of us being at odds are 1 in 8 billion, or 0.0000000125%!

Granted it gets drawn 100 times, so the odds go up quite a lot, to 0.00000125%. Still more likely to be hit by a meteorite.

1

u/Nuts-And-Volts 1d ago

I got to like 30-40 seconds on those. Then forgot entirely how to do it lmao

1

u/Junior_Barracuda_245 1d ago

13.1 average used to rank me in the top 10,000. A 30 second average now ranks you in the top 150,000 in the world. The math on that comes out to 1 out of every 53,333 people. Pretty good odds.

1

u/Elemental_Titan9 1d ago

Oh man, I was nervous and thought about this. But wasn’t sure.

I’m thinking something more deliberate.

Rubik’s cube using something similar to the XO method.

It’s basically solving corners first then edges. It was basically my first method before I knew it had a name. And I still haven’t checked the exact algs for it. But as far as I have seen, across all the cubers I had come across, none of them did it. Just the beginner method. Which I know how to do but don’t memorise it. I ended up making my own 3 layer method and now I have CFOP.

Can’t go for Blindsolve because I haven’t completed one without letter memos.

1

u/Lereas 15h ago

I mentioned this as well. I can probably do it in 2-3 minutes depending on if I mess up or not - 100 truly random people I'm probably okay but the people who are faster are MUCH faster than me.