You're right, I didn't read the article carefully enough. In my defense, it has things like "rate of change: -134 billion metric tons per year" and "Antarctica

You're right, I didn't read the article carefully enough. In my defense, it has things like "rate of change: -134 billion metric tons per year" and "Antarctica is still losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice per year" and "if Antarctica was actually gaining ice" and so on ... when what it means is, Antarctica is still (net) gaining ice, but it's also losing ice more rapidly, and in the near future the loss will outpace the gain.