There's no mention at all of the "universe is a simulation" theory in the article, unless I managed to skip a paragraph.

So title is entirely clickbait, surely? It's not "We're Getting Better at Universe Simulations" that is the content given. I was hoping to find some discussion of the simulation theory and perhaps reasons found that it may not be possible. That's why I clicked and read.

The title is just poking fun at the "The Universe is a Simulation" articles that keep popping up, I mean sure it technically makes an irrelevant claim, but in context it's clear that the main part of the article is supposed to be about how we can simulate the universe.

I agree it's kind of weird to raise something in the title and not address it at all in the main article, but that's a minor flaw in what's clearly intended as a joke.

"in context" just means "after reading the entire article and discovering that the headline is clickbait"

There is a essentially a proof by induction that if several properties hold (such as the 2nd half of this headline) then our odds of being in the unsimulated universe are approaching 0, making the first half of the sentence a remarkable finding given the 2nd half. I.e. that one of the other prerequisites has been proved false.

"The universe may not sit on top of a giant turtle."

I'm so sick of these bullshit theorists coming up with unverifiable imaginations out of thin air. Produces lots of clicks and laymen books but doesn't do jackshit to help move science forward.