Not all approaches to the Hubble tension are equally good or bad. Some recent discussion seems to ignore the fact that early-time approaches like New Early Dark Energy also fit the CMB better than Lambda-CDM independent of the Hubble tension ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08895 ).

First Sloth in space! Zero-G indicator on today’s mission to the space station was a Sloth 🦥

Quote from today’s review of the local H0 measurements: JWST “observations provide the strongest evidence yet that systematic errors in HST Cepheid photometry do not play a significant role in the present Hubble Tension”: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10954

Groningen group with a new paper *not* finding evidence of unknown systematics being the source of the Hubble tension. This further strengthens the case for early times (pre-recombination) new physics, like New Early Dark Energy (NEDE): https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05157

A reminder not to believe we know it all and not to stop exploring the wonders that nature might hide for us.

“NANOGrav meets Hot New Early Dark Energy and the origin of neutrino mass”: We show that in the Hot NEDE model, both the Hubble tension and the NANOGrav observations could be a signature of the origin of neutrino mass: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03091