Regardless of the lipid accumulation, they didn’t comment at all in the arstechnica piece about how the energetics are different 2ATP per COH3- in McG vs 1.5 ATP per COH3- in Calvin and where the glycolate is coming from. The whole point was to comment on RUBISCO inefficiency which they did not do, and the McG pathway consumes more ATP per carbon fixed, which is kind of against the idea of fixing more carbon in the first place. I’m not sure how truly amazing this article is, given the energetics, the lack of comment on stoich comparisons, and the glaring error of not commenting at all about the source of the glycolate.