This isn't a rebuttal of the linked comment. The linked comment doesn't state that it would be a waste of time to replicate on a hypothetical LHC clone. Rathe

This isn't a rebuttal of the linked comment. The linked comment doesn't state that it would be a waste of time to replicate on a hypothetical LHC clone. Rather, the linked comment states that we can accept the Higgs result with reasonable confidence even though it's currently infeasible to replicate that experiment. Feynman's issue was also qualitiatively different -- the scientist was comparing results from two different instruments. The people in charge of one of the instruments wouldn't allow the scientist to run both experiments on a single instrument. In fact, from context, it's not even clear to me Feynmann would have insisted on re-running the original experiment if the scientist were not using a different accelerator for the second one. Anyways, in the Higgs case, there's no potential for a "comparing readings from instrument A to readings from instrument B" type bug. More to the point, and FWIW, I somehow doubt Feynman would insist on building a second LHC for the sole purpose of replicating the Higgs measurement. But I guess we have to leave that to pure speculation.