"Who wrote the Death Note script?"
I give a history of the 2009 leaked script, discuss internal & external evidence for its authenticity including stylometrics; and then give a simple step-by-step Bayesian analysis of each point. We finish with high confidence in the script's authenticity, discussion of how this analysis was surprisingly enlightening, and what followup work the analysis suggests would be most valuable.
If you're already familiar this particular leaked 2009 live-action script, please write down your current best guess as to how likely it is to be authentic.
This is intended to be easy to understand and essentially beginner-level for Bayes's theorem and fermi estimates, like my other Death Note essay (information theory, crypto) or my console insurance page (efficient markets, positive psychology, expected value).
Be sure to check out the controversial twist ending!
(I'm sorry to post just a link, but I briefly thought about writing it and all the math in the LW edit box and decided that cutting my wrists sounded both quicker and more enjoyable. Unfortunately, there seems to be a math problem in the Google Chrome/Chromium browser where fractions simply don't render, apparently due to not enabling Webkit's MathML code; if fractions don't render for you, well, I know the math works well in my Iceweasel and it seems to work well in other Firefoxes.)
But you don't add the different probabilities for where the first item can be. No matter where the first item in the pair occurs, there is a 1/29 chance the second item will be next to it.
Another way of thinking about it. For any given item, there are 29 other items. Only one of these can be paired with the first, and all these events are equally likely. The probabilty has to be 1/29 and not 1/15, because 29 copies of 1/15 don't add up to 1.
Actually, the probability is slightly lower, because some items are not leaves at all. If we take the tree in the article as representative, then we expect roughly 10 pairs among the 30 items, which gives a probability of 2/87: with probability 2/3, the first item ends up as half of a pair, and with probability 1/29, the second item ends up as the other half of that same pair.
In the movie subtree, we have 12 items, so the probability of being paired is 2/33 rather than 1/6.
Edit: Laplace-adjusting the "is a random item in a pair" probability, we get 11/32 as an estimate instead, and 1/16 for the final answer. Note that because of the reasonably large sample size, this doesn't make a huge difference.
'Next to it', perhaps, but wouldn't that other alternative be putting it on an entirely different branch and so less similar as it's not in the same cluster?
movie-fearandloathing
may be 'next to'fanfiction-remiscent-afterthought-threecharacters
in the clustering, but not nearly as similar to it asmovie-1492conquestparadise
... so I think that analysis is less right than my own simple one.