Does this truly put the argument to rest though? The conclusion seems to be that because the complexity of a machine (that we can conceive) would need more atoms than (we know of) in our universe, that it's impossible that we're living in a simulation. All that says to me is that it's impossible we're living in a simulation constructed of our best understanding of what a computer can be, and made of/describing the particles we know of... which only constitutes like 5% of the universe. What's stopping a system we can't comprehend made of matter we neither know of nor understand from being what's running the simulation?
Disclaimer: My opinion is based on the cosmos magazine write-up, as reading the paper just showed me how illiterate I am in quantum particle physics, haha. So if someone could explain why the paper proves I'm wrong that would be awesome!