They also found a better headline. NYT's headline is sensationalistic in the sense that astronomers didn't get anything wrong. Ten years ago, when I was in gra

They also found a better headline. NYT's headline is sensationalistic in the sense that astronomers didn't get anything wrong. Ten years ago, when I was in grad school, all my group did was study models with a dynamic dark energy component because it was a very common opinion among cosmologists that LCDM won't be the final answer, even though it fit the data best, because there are theoretical problems with it. If there are no observations that rule out a cosmological constant, you cannot justify introducing new parameters, so what we did is trying to figure out if and by how much certain future surveys (we were focused mostly on Euclid) could see a difference between LCDM and your favorite dynamic dark energy model. So while this is a very exciting development, it's not like astronomers world wide are now in despair that they got something wrong. I've been out of academia for a while now, but I bet it's a welcome and overdue change in our view on the universe.