Anyone know how to make VertexCoordinates do what I want, i.e. not this: i.imgur.com/VJcCKqp.png

IDK how to assign coordinates to vertices by number

@JimB I'm just feeling that when there's one gendered pronoun for absolutely everybody, it should already be the optimal situation and there's no need to fix it. It is the classical question of conservatism vs. progressiveness: do you prefer not fixing something that works, or do you prefer change? Frankly, views where change is always the way to go tend to look more like political opportunism than genuine balanced chnge for the better...

I have very little against organic change from he/she dichotomy to single non-gendered variant. (Vast spectrum of languages do just fine without such a dichotomy, dominant Indo-European languages are a bit of an oddity.) Groups that are most interested on the subject are just feeling that they don't get empowered enough over others' use of speech with such a change.

@CarlLange I was wondering why there was a second small island next to British South America in this: xkcd.com/2256

And then I realized I am a total idiot

And that it is Irish South America

But I'm not entirely sure I would have realized that had I not spent like 10 hours this summer looking at those beautiful maps of Irish trails you made + then trying to find them on Google Earth

@Pavel The vertices are indexed according to the order they appear in the first argument of Graph, no matter how they are called. So the vertex with index 1 is called 1, the one with index 2 is called 3, the one with index 3 is called 7, ... If you want to change the indexing order of the vertices, you can use the Graph[vertices, edges, ...] form to give the vertices in the correct order. In your case, this would be Graph[Range[7], {1->3, 1->7, ...}, ...]

@JimB What do you think about this question? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/213032/…

I'd lean towards saying that it's off topic

But if someone takes the time to write an explanation of ARIMAProcess, I'll be happy to read it

Do people think that this QA about how to learn Mathematica has grown so large that it's not that useful anymore?

Do we need to have a much shorter, much more focused guide, so that people new to the system will not get overwhelmed?

Perhaps it could be a separate answer. It can be opinionated and biased. I think that's a price to pay for making it concise and focused.

I have been thinking of this since commenting on this question: mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/213024/12 I stand by what I said: SE is not a substitute for introductory tutorials, and anyone asking to solve specific tasks should try to learn the basics first. But it's good to have a friendly, focused, easy to follow guide to learning that we can link to.

@Szabolcs I more than lean in thinking the question is off topic. It would take a lot of time to provide a good answer and a cursory answer would likely not help the OP. The question would be better asked at CrossValidated although the answer there might very well be "Consult with a statistician" or "Take a time series class".

@Szabolcs I've put a close vote on that ARIMA time series question but with a suggestion that also showing the results using R (with R's arima function) might get a better response or at least appeal to a wider set of folks.

Could anyone share the link for the plugin which converts the [Symbol] into real symbols in the answers? I had it in my old computer and now I completely forgot about it.

@Szabolcs I personally don't find that to be a useful Q&A at all, I would have even voted to close it as too broad, but that ship has sailed.

@Sumit chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mathematica-editor-button/… if you use chrome