I'd like to point out that discoveries in fundamental physics do not always come from work in fundamental physics. Physical systems exhibit some "holographic" or "self-similar" tendency where high-level statistical effects will often mimic low-level fundamental dynamics. For example, wave propagation was originally described for pressure waves propagating in a physical medium, then applied to light waves after the work of Maxwell. More recently, the Lorentz transformations, originally used to calculate the effects of finite-speed electric fields on susceptible particles, turned out to be a fundamental property of the universe. And the Hamiltonian path integral formulation, originally a mathematical curiosity, turned out to be crucial for describing relativistic quantum interactions.
Some of the work that `yummypaint describes which is being done in quantum chromodynamics -- a field in which we have a working "lattice" approximation but almost no real analytical solutions -- may eventually prove useful for a theory of quantum gravity. However, QCD is still very immature. Those with a little experience will recognize the phrase "non-perturbative" which describes some QCD problems -- this also appears in quantum gravity, where perturbation theory fails. The lattice gauge theory model used to solve QCD problems today cannot be extended to gravity, but other methods might not have this limitation.
So the lack of clear and demonstrated progress in fundamental physics does not mean that we are not learning real facts which can eventually be useful for describing fundamental physics. The situation is not so dire.
As for critiques of Hossenfelder, it's certainly true that her writing tends to the dramatic. Just last year she was optimistic about asymptotically safe quantum gravity:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-an-old-theory-of-everythi...
technical FAQ: http://www.percacci.it/roberto/physics/as/faq.html
One might guess that her tone of despair here is a little performative as well.