Well, a quick search on InspireHEP shows a 2019 paper [1] that adds on Shaposhnikov and Wtterich's. Of note is that an updated top mass value changes the Higgs mass prediction to 132 GeV, rather in tension with 125 GeV. (The paper then cleverly tries to extend the Standard Model to adjust the prediction back to the measured Higgs mass.) The original argument doesn't look like such a slam dunk anymore.
[1] Kwapisz, "Asymptotic safety, the Higgs mass and beyond the Standard Model physics"
Prediction: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1059 Review and discussion: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2231
That being said, I still believe that asymptotic safety in quantum gravity is a really cool idea and it's well worth pursuing. It deserves better than to be used as a hammer for people bashing other legit science.
A prediction for the weight of Higgs boson particle using this, and it came true.
There is no shame in shining a bit of light on your own value. Just don’t make it blazing sun pointing at a small accomplishment.
It follows that shining light on value should be a shared responsibility. It’s not just the creator that’s negatively impacted when we fail to do so. We all are.
And of course, many binary segmentations work well for most cases and fail in unusual cases that can generally ignored.
People who take the credit are, almost by definition, competing with each other.
My observation is simply that giving credit to community-minded scientists costs nothing, but giving credit to psychopaths with the Kings ear can cost everyone their lives. There are always problems with a Meritocracy, as someone eventually has to define what has merit.
I am thankful to have goldfish crackers and jellybeans. Have a wonderful day =)