it seems fine to invest and then publicly state your views, including that it should not be interpreted as an endorsement. your investment (and that of other people who decide similarly) is trivial in size compared to the other sources of funding, such that it's not counterfactual. you're not going to cause the founders of anthropic to get any less of a windfall. the decision process for the vast majority of possible investors does not take into account whether or not you invested.

i think you've already sufficiently signaled your genuineness, for all practical purposes. i don't think it's healthy to have a purity spiral.

only a fool is easily parted from his money. but even the most wise, intelligent, and savvy are routinely parted from his power and influence 

lots of very important people spend all day being pestered by people due to their power/importance. at least some of them appreciate occasional interactions with people who just want to chat about something random like their bike seat

once, due to a huge traffic accident on the 101 that turned a sub-half-hour uber into a 1 hour 15 minute uber, i arrived at the airport about 20 minutes before departure (yes, departure, not "gate closes"). because the uber app operates on "uber time", which is entirely unmoored from reality, this meant that the arrival time estimate slipped out 5 minutes at a time. so i went through the whole range of emotions: whew, thankfully i have an hour buffer; hmm, i've never arrived 40 minutes before a flight it's going to be tight; holy shit i'm going to miss this flight with only 30 mins; holy shit even if i wasn't going to miss the flight before i definitely am now.

(to make matters worse, not only was the flight not delayed, the departure time was changed to be 5 minutes earlier than originally planned. i didn't even know they could do that.)

i somehow still managed to get on the flight, which departed as scheduled. still not sure that happened, but i think i learned something about how perseverance is important in the face of almost certain defeat, or something like that idk. 2/10 would not do again.

you can even indicate an exact line by making a larger or smaller dogear

in defense of putting your python imports in the middle of your file (in global scope, not inside functions)

• i have never in my life wanted to know the list of all the things a file imports before seeing any of the actual code in the file. if i see something i dont recognize, i would appreciate it more if the import were right above the usage; otherwise, i have to ctrl+f for it anyways. what's
• it's more annoying to have to add it to the top of the file. auto import things in ides are often broken.
• there's absolutely nothing wrong with importing something multiple times. it costs absolutely nothing; it's just a no-op the second time. even in C you can do #pragma once to get python-like behavior
• the only reason not to do this is that if you put an import in the middle of a function it's weird (if you import both blobally and locally, then using the thing locally but before the local import errors). so just don't put the import inside a function

my guess is sth like 1; I think some people are a lot more sensitive to some flavors than others. also the extent to which you pay attention can affect flavor a lot. and fwiw I frequently notice that some restaurants make the same dish a lot better than other restaurants, and the major ingredients must be about the same (or at least the quality/quantity difference is small enough that it's not the first thing I noticed), so it must be in the minor ingredients. but often my friends won't notice a big difference and conversely I don't notice a big difference in the foods they draw strong distinctions for

(there are some really subtle flavors that I like, that are very subtle and which most places get wrong in ways that I can't put my finger on - e.g hainan chicken rice, gyu-don, edmonton style donair)

am not at all involved in naming so not sure, but i'd guess none of it is intentional and more just the emergent result of compromise between a bunch of people / relatively little effort being expended on naming

solution is very simple. administer alcohol before the test until everyone is exactly as clumsy as the NIST Standard Reference Clumsy Human for Accessibility Testing

(or, rig the game, make a ledge that automatically pops out of the ground a split second before your foot hits it)

idea: survey people about whether 3^^^3 toe stubbings can be worse than torture, except with a twist: with 50% probability, arrange the furniture in the room such that people actually accidentally stub their toe right before answering the survey