Nowadays whenever I set out to write about CMS I turn on a self-censorship co-processor in the back of my mind, one which is instructed to check that all the sentences I write are completely free from any possible misinterpretation or slant that may cause some colleagues to complain. Oh, strike that, we're a big family and we all love each other.

The topic of today is in fact potentially explosive - how experiments perform their blind searches and the potential bias that results from the detailed procedures they employ. However, you will be disappointed by reading this article if you search for scandal and flame: I am going to explain why CMS does excellent science.

Today the arxiv features the paper describing the final word by the CDF experiment on its searches for the standard model Higgs boson. This paper supersedes previous ones describing searches performed in partial datasets and including only a subset of the decay channels that have been used, so if you are interested in knowing how CDF did in the end, that is the article to read. Or the present one, if you have less time to spend on the matter, or if you are interested in an ex-post evaluation of sensitivity predictions!

The DZERO collaboration has released last week the result of their search for the rare decay of B_s mesons into muon pairs, based on the full statistics of proton-antiproton collisions acquired during Run II - a total of 10.4 inverse femtobarns of integrated luminosity.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a well-known theoretical physicist as well as a successful blogger. In her blog today I read a letter she sent to Time Magazine. The letter was triggered by the following sentence in a piece by Jeffrey Kluger discussing the runners-up for "person of the year":

“Physics is a male-dominated field, and the assumption is that a woman has to overcome hurdles and face down biases that men don’t. But that just isn’t so. Women in physics are familiar with this misconception and acknowledge it mostly with jokes.”