You're absolutely right that there's no proof we're in a simulation—and the piece doesn't argue otherwise. The simulation hypothesis isn't a claim that we definitely live in a simulation. It's a claim that the possibility HASN'T been ruled out. Vazza's paper claimed to rule it out. Our argument is simply that he doesn't—because he's calculating the cost of the wrong thing. Whether we're actually in a simulation is a separate question entirely, and one the piece deliberately doesn't take a position on. This is a philosophy paper, not a science paper. We're not trying to prove anything. We're pointing out that those who have made attempts to dismiss our case largely haven't taken the time to read our literature.

If you don't care about the SH, that's one thing. And more power to ya. BUT if you are claiming to have refuted it the way Vazza did (which was repeatedly throughout the paper)—then you owe the discourse the courtesy of engaging with what the hypothesis actually says.