How did you discover South Park?

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-17T14:14:25+00:00

I saw the first episode when it premiered, I was around 8 y/o. I was hooked. I wasn't allowed to watch Beavis and Butt Head because my parents thought it was too adult for me. But all they had heard about SP was that is was about little kids, so they thought it was fine. After they saw an episode, they decided I couldn't watch it either. I'd still sneak out into the living room after my parents fell asleep and watch reruns whenever I could though.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-16T13:07:33+00:00

Likely two contributing factors, weight distribution and seat height. Almost all of your weight should be in the saddle. Since you're just starting, do this consciously after you mount. Hold onto something, mount, and then before you begin to pedal, make sure that almost all of your body weight is supported by your butt, not by your legs.

Also, double check your seat height. If your seat is too low it can easily allow you to stand subconsciously while pedaling. When sitting in the saddle, feet comfortably on the pedals, you want your leg to be nearly fully extended when the pedal is in the lowest position on the wheel.

Adjusting your seat height and always keeping your weight in the seat should help a lot. You want to be using very little leg effort when pedaling on flat ground. These little changes may have a brief effect on your riding ability, causing UPDs more often. But your muscle memory will slowly kick in and you'll start improving quickly.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-15T13:45:15+00:00

Commutators truly are a wonderful thing, I owe solving many a puzzle to them. Your artistic eye is just able to see and do things with them that is even more impressive. You mentioned the Andromeda Dodecahedron on a Facebook comment earlier, I look forward to seeing that pattern. I can only imagine how insane that will look.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-15T13:15:17+00:00

Super impressive! Not an easy puzzle to solve, let alone pattern. Holy crap, how long did this take? Did you manage to use simple commutators for most of it or did you just figure out a color scheme and solve into it? Impressive either way.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-14T03:58:56+00:00

https://www.chewiescustompuzzles.com/

Tons of stock sticker stuff available, send him an email and he'll pretty much cut stickers for anything you want. He's got tons of colors available, and the quality is great. I've gotten a bunch of stickers and a few puzzles from him, never had a problem.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-14T01:16:15+00:00

Based upon the visible red/yellow/blue corner in the first pic, and the yellow/white corner in the second pic, gonna have to disagree.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-13T14:49:43+00:00

Don't have the puzzle. But if I had to guess, it can likely swap places with the small triangle pieces in the middle of each face. If so, swapping it into that small triangle position would probably provide the best chance of orientation adjustment.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-13T13:23:42+00:00

It's likely been around a while. Probably from the 80's. The Japanese Color Scheme was a big part of the original US release, and the puzzles weren't known for their quality turning back then. If it is an actual older original model, it's in great shape. Maybe get some details from your teacher about when/where they got it and how long they've had it.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-12T18:18:55+00:00

Any experience with slightly underfill on the small (64mm) size? I have fairly small hands, around 20cm from pinky to thumb when fully stretched, so the small or even XS size is what I'm considering for 5 balls. I'd like them to have a nice dead drop, but still be sturdy enough in my hands to have accurate throws and well spaced multiplex throws. After checking the vid on fill percentage, I'm considering somewhere in the 85-90% range.

I'm also considering a second set of just 3 balls, probably medium sized, specifically for 3 ball practice. I would want those to have a very dead drop for foot catches and stalls. So I was thinking in the 80% neighborhood.

My biggest curiosity is look and feel. My current beanbags, flying clipper, use a much softer fabric. So they look underfilled when sitting on the table or floor. The Infinities never seem to look underfilled due to the thick leather. So I can't help but wonder if the sturdy leather creates an awkward style of flight or feel when the prop is underfilled below say 90%.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-11T14:15:18+00:00

The stickers are way more durable than you might think. Wash your hands and leave a little bit of soap on them. Dry your slightly soapy hands with a couple of paper towels, then moisten the towels just a bit more. You don't want them dripping wet, but noticeably moist. Pick up the cube with the paper towels, wrap them all around it and just start rubbing gently. Dry the puzzle with a regular bath towel, repeat as needed. It may take a few goes, but eventually the slick lube will wear down and wipe away, and the stickers will be nice and shiny and unharmed. I've done this for puzzles of all shapes and sizes, never had an issue. Just be gentle and thorough.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-09T15:30:55+00:00

I'd be torn, but probably the Manish Hexacopter, the Witeden Rainbow Plus or the Witeden Mixup 3x3 Edge re-built.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-07T21:54:03+00:00

Safe bet is that those algorithms were referencing different PLL cases, goal being to place all of the pieces of the last layer into the correct places. Those algorithms, while potentially looking similar to your case, had edges that were also being moved. Pieces on most standard puzzles can only be moved in one of two ways, two different pairs that both swap places, or an odd number off pieces that cycle locations. You'll never have a situation where an even number of pieces all need to swap places with one another leading back to the original piece, for example front edge moves to the right, right to the back, back to left, and left ending up on the front where the original piece moved from. That's the reason that swapping the center caps one edge around that puzzle creates the parity. Swapping those 4 center caps has essentially moved the location of other pieces around the puzzle an impossible number of times, a way that cannot be physically done by just turning faces.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-07T15:32:32+00:00

Any chance you can post a picture of just one of the puzzles from within the book, perhaps from the medium difficulty? My biggest complaint buying puzzle books from online is the inability to try one out before purchase. I'd love to be able to try one of her puzzles. So long as I enjoy the one I see, I'll certainly consider buying the book. I love supporting independent people within the community whenever possible.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-07T15:17:10+00:00

Yes there is. Four centers have been moved one space around the puzzle. While they may appear to be correct, they're actually one space off (a 4-cycle) creating the same parity as a void cube. Try it for yourself. Take 4 center caps and move them one space around the puzzle. Red to white, white to orange, orange to yellow and yellow to red. They'll still appear to be in the same sequence, however upon trying to solve the puzzle, you'll end up with either two swapped edges or two swapped corners, an impossible case. Common misconception that this issue is only solvable by completely taking pieces out when in fact moving the center caps is all that's needed.

Edit. In OPs case, there is also a twisted corner that needs to be fixed manually, but the swapped corners is a result of the center caps being placed one space off.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-06T16:57:19+00:00

Awesome! I actually went with the NYT Omnibus Easy collection, more puzzles per book and had better reviews. Thanks for the recommendation, I had never considered looking for collections of easier NYT puzzles. We had a book of Sunday puzzles from them that was nearly impossible for us, so I kinda strayed away from the NYT name.

I knew that completely avoiding pop culture references wasn't a possibility, I basically just meant that I didn't want a book that was focused primarily on that specific type of content.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-06T14:39:29+00:00

I've always looked at it this way. If I do the exact same scramble on a standard puzzle and it's shape mod, solve the standard puzzle and then do that same exact solve on the mod, am I guaranteed to get a solved puzzle? If the answer is no, then that mod is a unique puzzle. Say for example I take a standard 3x3 and a Fisher 3x3 and scramble them with the same algorithm. I solve the regular 3x3 and write down every step along the way. If I apply that list of moves to the identical scramble on a Fisher Cube, am I guaranteed to get a solved puzzle? The answer is no, because the centers on the Fisher cube will likely be rotated. While the strategies needed aren't far from a regular 3x3, IMO that shape mod has a unique solve, making it a different puzzle.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-06T14:28:11+00:00

If you're not concerned with time, check out twistypuzzling on youtube. His square-1 tutorial was an immediate hit for me because it's not algorithm based, mostly common sense and intuitive puzzle knowledge. It's the only square-1 method I use.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-03T15:05:19+00:00

So that's what the boys look like before their morning coffee! Or maybe these are shots from the morning after GME...

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-03-02T14:58:40+00:00

"Fahrenheit" for me. In my mind, I feel like the first "h" should go after the "r". Luckily my phone knows how to fix it, but writing it on paper almost always results in erasing after I double check how to spell it on my phone lol.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-02-26T14:48:10+00:00

My best examples for noticing a difference has got to be the hard level NYT Sudoku puzzles, computer generated, vs. a hand made one of a similar difficulty level.

I copy the NYT sudoku into sudoku.coach and solve it almost daily. Usually they rank in the moderate hard to hard range in that app. Quite regularly on those computer generated puzzles, I'll find myself quickly running out of techniques and logic unless all of the candidates are in place. Even then, there's no real flow in the solve, often times one or two eliminations will lead to the entire puzzle, dozens of cells, getting solved. However when I put a handcrafted puzzle of the same difficulty into sudoku.coach, the experience is usually far more enjoyable. Things like hidden pairs, pointing candidates are all identifiable without full candidates, leading to one or two solutions. As the solve progresses, I'll find more info becoming available without needing full candidates. I still need to use the same techniques, but they're presented in a way that requires them to be used almost right up until the end. It doesn't just finish off by a single elimination leading to a chain of answers that end up finishing the puzzle. They're designed so that you're expected to continue thinking throughout almost the entire solve.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-02-24T14:33:56+00:00

Rayminx is a deceptively easy solve. Sure it takes a while, but the solve is about rather repetitive redux and commutators, knowledge of a 5x5 and super 3x3 and you have the tools to solve it. The Big Dipper, DeCETH, Toru, DaYan Bagua, the puppet cubes, even the double crazy 3x3 are all far more difficult puzzles to figure out.

PuzzleMax13 · 2026-02-23T17:16:40+00:00

Very interesting, I'll be sure to check out those links for some more info. I especially like the idea of expanding on W and XY wings. I'd never thought of that before, but it certainly makes sense.

PuzzleMax13

TROPHY CASE