I think the question whether to build a new collider deserves more than a simple "yes" and "no". Indeed, it looks as if particle physics right now is a bit in a

I think the question whether to build a new collider deserves more than a simple "yes" and "no". Indeed, it looks as if particle physics right now is a bit in a dead end, there are no obvious and imminent discoveries to be expected from such an instrument. And with the enormous amount of money it would require, a lot of other experiments could be financed, which short term are much more likely to advance science. On the other side, I unless there is evidence that we cannot discover any more by building a new collider, we shouldn't just stop research into that direction. We don't know what lies there and might be missing the true discoveries to be made. Also, these colliders do finance a lot of science around them. Just designing and building them fills plenty of thesises and papers. A lot of adjacent science is involved. Detector design, data processing just to name a few. The web we are using has been invented at CERN :) Consequently, the cost trade-off isn't as clear-cut as the article might make it sound. Which for me leads to the obvious answer: yes, we should build another, larger collider. But probably not right now. There should be plenty of funding for the current one and also quite a bit of theoretical preparation before it is getting planned/built. In this time, other projects should get priority funding. But eventually, we should build another collider. We should never stop researching.