The author's basic arguments in this post are not at all about space expansion, they are simply about how "wild" (that is, unlikely or surprising) any of the op

The author's basic arguments in this post are not at all about space expansion, they are simply about how "wild" (that is, unlikely or surprising) any of the options actually are. They present a timeline where they don't believe it's that significant if the predictions they will make will happen in 100 or 100k years, since they intend to claim that this will create a civilization stable for billions of years. I would bet that the whole series will end up being mostly meaningless, in the sense that it will be either trivial or wrong. That is, either it will continue to make trivial observations (either we live in the first ~100k years of a billion-year civilization, or such a civilization will never exist - a truism); or, they will start making obviously wrong claims, such as the AI singularity idea. Edit: In general, talking about stability on the order of billions of years is absurd. This is literally enough time to conceive of self-conscious organisms evolving inside our bodies. It is enough times for the radioactive decay of many stable materials. Imagining that a man-made structure could be stable for this amount of time is laughable.