The question Hacking the universe has shown up on several different "be aware" lists (particularly, answer flagging and number of answers in a short period of time). The question basically boils down to:
Imagine the whole universe is a simulation. ... What would be a reasonable attack vector for a simulated human to hack the very simulation that human lives in?
The question has attracted 12 answers in just over a day, over half (seven) of which are zero net voted as I am typing this. Several of the answers, while not necessarily bad, are also what I feel is below par for the site.
The main problem is that the question as it stands appears to me as very broad. It has been fairly highly voted, but a part of that appears to me to be that it offers the possibility of an in-universe explanation for magic. However, it also seems to be asking for a largely unbounded set of answers ("what would be a reasonable attack vector?" without establishing much in terms of constraints).
Again, the number of different answers attracted by that question, several of which by users new to the site as well, while not necessarily a problem in itself, shows how broad the question is and how differently it is being interpreted by different people.
I have put it on hold for the moment so that we can have a bit of discussion about it here and decide what to do with it.
- Is the question too broad?
- If it is too broad, then what can be done to it to make it less broad, such that it is a good fit for the Stack Exchange format and the Worldbuilding Stack Exchange?
- If it isn't too broad, then what does that mean for our standards on what constitutes "too broad"?
In answering the above questions, you may also want to consider the meta questions listed below.