Iran pushes back against Trump’s deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has become the new tariffs. It’s the same pattern of empty threats. My prediction a month ago of the strait closure lasting much longer than expected, is looking especially prescient. Trump is forced between the following choices, none of which are good.
One: Continuing what he is doing now of making empty threats with limited intervention.
Two: Actually following through on one of this threats, attracting bad press and international condemnation.
Three: A ground invasion to help secure the strait, again leading to bad press and possible loss of support (I predict not).
.
Four: Cutting and running and hoping Iran opens the strait, but admitting defeat is not in Trump’s nature, and of course, it would give fodder to the Democrats.
Given these choices, the strait will remain closed for far longer than widely assumed, or even until after 2028 election. Trump has boxed himself in. NATO is not going to do anything. What was assumed to be an easy campaign has turned into something of a quagmire. But stocks will recover anyway despite oil above $100, as I also predicted. Consumer spending is not going to be affected much.
In case you missed it: “AI Changes Everything–and Nothing”
Despite AI, wealth inequality will remain wider than ever. Elite colleges and tech job are still important and selective. Living expenses such as healthcare, housing/rent, dining out, insurance premiums, and tuition are still as expensive as ever despite promises of AI somehow ‘ending scarcity’ or post-scarcity. AI has made some things cheaper, such as short-form content, but anything involving labor is still expensive. Coding is still time-consuming. I have observed that people who are already good at coding stand to gain the most from coding agents. There won’t be a UBI either, which is a commonly floated solution to AI-based job loss.
Content pertaining to AI, such as articles and podcasts, has a large and captive audience and represents a multi-million dollar industry through product placement and ads. It’s like take any topic or social issue (e.g. unemployment) and then add “AI” to it, and suddenly you’ve greatly increased the amount of content.
Skill at making money doesn’t at all translate to reading audiences, being well-read, or reading social cues. This shouldn’t be a surprise, but the public as high expectations that competence in one domain, such as business, must be mirrored in others, like being erudite and well-informed on a wide range of topics.
It’s often asked why dieting has such a high failure rate. Hyperpalatable food and loss of willpower are commonly blamed. Metabolism is seldom implicated. The assumption is that eating a “normal” amount–say, around 2,400 calories per day for a male–will naturally lead to a normal weight, but for people who are or have been obese, simply matching that intake does not guarantee they will reach or maintain a normal weight. To the contrary, my research, based on studies and anecdotal evidence, has shown that the typical daily calorie consumption of a formerly obese male to maintain a 170-200lbs bodyweight at 23-26 BMI is only around 1,400-2,000 kcal/day. Not much. It’s evident, based on my own research at least, why dieting fails for so many people.
Examples such as the Minnesota starvation experiment are outliers, possibly representing individuals who have fast metabolisms. It’s also possible that metabolisms have slowed over the past century for reasons that are poorly understood. “Fast metabolism” (“fast” in this context meaning relative to predicted metabolism for a person’s weight and height based on regression models) is as every bit innate as IQ or height. This is the “metabolism black pill” just as there are harsh truths for other aspects of human biology.
Interesting tweet:
Fantastic piece of cultural reporting by Robert Mariani in @tnajournal. He writes abt "Diner Gothic" as an emerging culture among downwardly mobile American young people. Really fascinating, and explains what I see when I go to Walmart back home visiting.https://t.co/2nZGESAKBP
— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) March 18, 2026
Hasn’t it always been this way? Downwardly-mobile, middle-America average/low-IQ 20-somethings are not going to be getting tech jobs or quant internships. They are not going to grad school, working their way through institutions, or socially climbing. Simple, cheap entertainment and cultivating online personas are a respite from a status-obsessed world they cannot possibly win at. Who can blame them?
This applies especially to men, too. If you’re a guy with a sub 100 IQ or so, becoming a streamer or podcaster is seen as a dream job or ticket to wealth. Otherwise, your options are typically limited to the service sector–there’s no coding or banking job you can fall back on if the podcast or YouTube career fails. America is unrivaled in the world at rewarding and identifying talent, but talent by definition excludes all but some. Hence, mediocrity as the default. Either you accept your role or position society has assigned that has all but your name on it, or drop out.