Actual incident link posted: https://status.cloud.google.com/incidents/ow5i3PPK96RduMcb1S...

The phrasing of the title and paper steer the interpretation towards reducing cysteine as a method for increasing weight loss, however I think that the much more interesting takeaway is this:

> Notably, restoration of up to 75% cystine levels in the diet of Cth−/− CysF mice that were undergoing weight loss was sufficient to completely rescue the body weight

This might indicate that cysteine depletion could be one mechanism present in some wasting diseases, and that strategic supplementation of cysteine may be beneficial in reducing excessive weight loss in such diseases. I would be quite interested to see future research in this area.

I had the distinct pleasure of working on S3 (Lifecycle) during the timeframe that the index team was working on the rearchitecture that enabled the read-after-write consistency.

I can confidently say that as impressive as S3 is from the outside, it's at least that impressive internally, both in implementation, and organizational structure.

Upon reading further found this: "would be a double whammy)." with no opening parenthesis to be found. Seems like sloppy writing and editing throughout.

I came here to say exactly this. I feel like I learned the proper way to write this before first grade, and that was in rural Iowa. How are the editors of a historically respected publication allowing this through?