No, what I’m saying is, the progress that we’ve seen may be a necessary part (a very small one) of a universe simulation if such a thing can be build.

But my claim is that we have absolutely no evidence that such a thing can be build, and even less that we’re living in one. As of today the simulation “hypothesis” is as well founded as every other metaphysical claim, creator gods included.

A sentence like “it’s very likely we live in a simulation” is about as well founded as trying to place us in any other science fiction world that has a 21st century earth at its heart.

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

That very much reminds me about the reasoning of Descartes why a god must exist: basically because he can think about it.

That very much reminds me about the reasoning of Descartes why a god must exist: basically because he can think about it.

Rename armed conflict to something like “special military operations”

Did the last year in Europe fly by you unnoticed?

What do statistics say about their distribution on different sites?

I wouldn't do it. If the user experience is bad, they'll uninstall it "because they tried and it sucked". Then they won't even go back.

I like the suggestion from OP.

I was only once in an ambulance in the past 30 years or so. There, my insurance came to me afterwards and wanted a 10€ share. For some reason I found this infuriating. (Germany)

But for the last 4 days the very top of every newsanchors' headline was something else. Probably that's what he means.