Kind of an underwhelming read: was this a lifeform dropping off? Most likely not. What was it? Probably ice melting ("calving") and the comment splitting in two. While I'm glad to have learned more, I kind of expected the data to keep going and more theories to build, instead it just goes "Well, we just don't know." I can admire that sometimes but it left me unsatisfied on this occasion.
We've taken out the baity bits above.
I bet this is a case where the article would have been more interesting if the title hadn't oversold it.
I went to grad school with the author, and I assure you that the title reflects his sense of humor, not over-selling.
That's great! Sometimes these things change meaning when they hop contextual boundaries. On HN, a title like that tends to backfire, at least once the story makes the front page.
The website is SyFy, as in the SyFy cable channel that shows mostly re-runs of sci-fi programs. Not surprising that their article about real science is pulpy and speculative.