"So much for atoms being uncuttable."

This is a very common misunderstanding of what Democritus' atom means. Strassler forgets what he wrote a few sentences ago. Dalton named "atom" what he believed to be indivisible with the technology available to him at the moment. Dalton's atom was never indivisible. There is a confusion about naming. Physicists gladly perpetuate this confusion to suggest that they divided something that was indivisible. Democritus' atom is an ideal. Assuming that indivisible objects exist, if they exist, we call them atom. Of course, we can never know if what we observe is the limit of our technology or if it is really indivisible.

I think Strassler does not see that physics jargon is inherently and intentionally confusing and physicists like it that way.