a bad graph about Hubble discrepancies
Here is a picture seen in a Nature Reviews Physics paper I came across, on the Hubble constant being consistently estimated as large now than previously. I have no informed comment to make on the paper, which thinks that these discrepancies support altering the composition of the Universe shortly before the emergence of the Cosmological Background Noise (CMB), but the way it presented the confidence assessments of the same constant H⁰ based on 13 different experiments is rather ghastly, from using inclined confidence intervals, to adding a USA Today touch to the graph via a broken bridge and a river below, to resorting to different scales for both parts of the bridge… 
October 27, 2020 at 7:51 am
It’s worth noting that (despite extensive searching) I have never found evidence that the cosmologists have investigated the Frequentist coverage properties of their credible intervals for H0. Back in 2004 Chris Genovese et al pointed out that there were reasons to be concerned of the possibility of coverage failures for this parameter which comes from marginalising over a high dimensional space with non-trivial contribution of the priors and many technical challenges in computing the likelihood etc.
October 28, 2020 at 3:15 pm
Shows how much radical Bayesian they are, no?!
September 23, 2020 at 5:44 pm
Comprend rien a ces babyfoot.
September 23, 2020 at 9:56 pm
ah!, surtout sur l’eau..!