exasperation

If you're accommodating another group of people you should produce enough to always feed them, too, not just sometimes in surplus years. The whole point is that you've gotta plan for a surplus, otherwise you risk starvation in bad years (and it doesn't make it any better, morally, if the people who bear the risk of starving are "another group or people").

how does waste prevent a shortage from becoming a famine ?

Making the expected production a higher number than the expected need will give the headroom necessary to deal with a shortage without people starving.

If you're aiming to produce food for a population of 100,000, but have the capacity to make food for 200,000, then you can afford to waste half of your food without starvation. You can also accommodate a 50% drop in production without starvation.

So that buffer is expected waste, but it's also starvation resistance.

Each item in this list is a euphemism for drinking Corona.

There's a quote in The Catcher in the Rye, attributed to Wilhelm Stekel:

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.

In most cases, one can do a lot more aggregate good over a long period of time than in a flashy moment, and we should live our lives in recognition of that reality.

Predate rationalism? Modern rationalism and the scientific method came up in the 16th and 17th centuries, and was built on ancient foundations.

Phlogiston theory was developed in the 17th century, and took about 100 years to gather the evidence to make it infeasible, after the discovery of oxygen.

Luminiferous aether was disproved beginning in the late 19th century and the nail in the coffin happened by the early 20th, when Einstein's theories really started taking off.

Plate tectonics was entirely a 20th century theory, and became accepted in the second half of the 20th century, by people who might still be alive today.

It means you have a lot more strength to gain. I think you can afford to just maintain while getting stronger, maybe for a few months, and then when you start cutting again it'll be easier.

Same energy:

In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes that same rib twice in succession yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we, to believe that this is some sort of a, a magic xylophone or something?

I am not sure how to judge my strength.

You could always plug in your numbers and take a look:

https://strengthlevel.com/

I'd say that if you still have a lot of strength to gain, then you can afford to keep cutting until it starts interfering with your workouts.

That being said, I find it easier psychologically to stick with a long term plan when I'm not cutting too much or too long.

Ok, thanks, I'll just set a threshold for myself. If I do more than 6 reps at 95% for my 1+ set, I'll do a joker set for 105%. If I bang out at least 5 reps on that first joker set I'll do 115% for a second joker, before going into accessory work.

We'll see how that goes.

So when you say your BMI is 30, are you a strong 30 or a fat 30? And have you plateaued in your strength gains from resistance training, or are you stronger than you were a month ago?

Personally, I find it easier to cut when I have the fitness to be able to burn a ton of calories through exercise: being able to run 30 minutes straight, being able to put in a high volume weight lifting workout, etc.

So if it were me, I'd lean towards pausing the cut and just getting stronger and fitter on the same weight, so that the next round of cutting, a few months from now, is easier.

Then again I've never been able to maintain a cut for more than 2-3 months, so you should be aware of my bias.

Science is a process for learning knowledge, not a set of known facts (or theories/conjectures/hypotheses/etc.).

Phlogiston theory was science. But ultimately it fell apart when the observations made it untenable.

A belief in luminiferous aether was also science. It was disproved over time, and it took decades from the Michelson-Morley experiment to design robust enough studies and experiments to prove that the speed of light was the same regardless of Earth's relative velocity.

Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted until we had the tools to measure continental drift.

So merely believing in something not provable doesn't make something not science. No, science has a bunch of unknowns at any given time, and testing different ideas can be difficult to actually do.

Hell, there are a lot of mathematical conjectures that are believed to be true but not proven. Might never be proven, either. But mathematics is still a rational, scientific discipline.

Maybe it was the people who had shit poured all over them by Dave Matthews Band.