<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>H0LiCOW XIII. A 2.4% measurement of $H_{0}$ from lensed quasars: $5.3σ$ tension between early and late-Universe probes · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.04869/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.04869/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>H0LiCOW XIII. A 2.4% measurement of $H_{0}$ from lensed quasars: $5.3σ$ tension between early and late-Universe probes — mentioned by magicalhippo</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20464860</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1907.04869:20464860</guid><pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 22:54:05 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Just a few days before that paper, this[1] paper was released where they used another independent method, which is in tension with the Planck results. Apparently the paper linked in the submission lies smack in the middle, but error bars prevents any firm conclusions. There&amp;#x27;s some interesting discussion over at Physics Forums[2], including a nice illustration of the tension between different approaches in post #16. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04869 [2]: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/new-h0licow-result-hub...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.04869/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
