I'd suggest anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus, complex numbers, and vectors to sit through Leonard Suskind's lectures on quantum gravity. This one was good and wouldn't need the calc/math background, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OkwGDKoY0o . But YT is full of actual physics lectures and sitting in on them is pretty approachable with that calc/math background. I think they give an interesting comparison to these popular pieces on particle physics. You might not understand everything the way a physics college student should, and that's ok because you aren't one. But I bet you walk away knowing quite a bit more than you suspect and you can always replay them.

Pop-sci pieces tend to portray the universe as just a bunch of particles interacting in odd/spooky ways. It's a little reductive and sort of enshrines entanglement and similar concepts as unknowable at times. I skimmed this and it seems to spend a lot of time on spin 0 particles. Who knows, maybe that's a constraint from ER=EPR? But I didn't feel like it really conveys much about Higgs.

(Which would serve a purpose - "oh you can't know it so please come back for next installment in my series of 10 books describing it." I don't think any authors actually set out with that as a goal, explicitly, but they could do a better pointing out where to go for further, more complicated edification. That sort of thing could shoehorn new talent into science.)