Ask HN: Regarding the simulation hypothesis, is something better than nothing?

You may not believe we are currently living in a simulation, but if we are, such a state would have some very important implications, for example:

(1) Is it possible to examine (and possibly hack) the underlying source code in order to improve the lot of both humanity and the other living organisms we share our planet with?

(2) Is it a digital simulation encompassing the whole universe (which for all we know may be just-in-time rendered background filler), or is it a biological simulation localized to, say, experimental colonies of an alien civilization (for example, what if there were 100s or 1000s of "Plan-ETs/ET-Plans", each with their own versions of Joe Biden and the NASDAQ and Ukraine and Putin and so on)?

Since there are no current tangible standards for assessing the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis being true and if so to what extent it is (save for a few philosophical postulates and Moore's law), can we come to a reasonable conclusion that "something", however imperfect and possibly objectionable it may be, is better than nothing?

What is being proposed is something that, however ridiculous it may seem at first glance, will at the very least allow for for the calculation of probabilities ("What are the odds that all these similarly-themed things are concurrent coincidences?").

Currently putting the finishing touches on such a presentation and transferring it to some managed hosting service for public contemplation.

What are your thoughts on the subject, Hacker News?

What if something came up that, although not 100% perfect evidence of the actuality of a sim, allowed you to calculate the likelihood of such to, say, a 99.99999999999...% likelihood?

Anybody see potential logical flaws with this approach?