She's demanding that idiots stop saying we might be living in a simulation, without any proof.
You don't need proof. That's not how science work. You should have evidence supporting the conjecture.
And we have that. As an example, an original universe hypothesis doesn't have any guesses for why quantum mechanics operate with probabilities and collapsing the waveform. A simulated universe does: You don't have to keep track of every particle but can wait until it is observed.
There's no compelling reason why an original universe hypothesis should be the null hypothesis. It's requires more complexity, because you can only simulate something with less complexity than you have, which makes an original universe the most complex possibility.
Add to that that you can have an unthinkably high number of simulated universes running under a single original universe, and many of these can also have simulated universes, until you reach a complexity that's low enough that you can't run a simulation in it. The mediocrity principle then dictates that the null hypothesis should be that we belong to one of the many, and not the unique one.
It is thus the original universe hypothesis that is an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed with extraordinary evidence. Not the other way around.