I see. Yes, the two sides are measuring different things. Still note that the major news there is effectively: "Riess's team reduced the uncertainty in their Hu

I see. Yes, the two sides are measuring different things. Still note that the major news there is effectively: "Riess's team reduced the uncertainty in their Hubble constant value to 1.9% from an earlier estimate of 2.2%." I fail to see that as something that can bring us to conclude anything exactly at this moment but that still more different approaches to measurements are needed. Maybe that Freedman's, or using WFIRST, if it manages to be, or, in the HN link you give, as ncmncm writes, LIGO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19773731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19773731 After more measurements, maybe the theory indeed will have to be more complex than what just "one and only" Hubble constant could allow. Still, the values are close enough that even as different as they're now I'm confident that everything we learned up to now is mostly right. In the cosmological scales there are maybe some adjustments to come, but anything that affects us is really good known.