[hytdstd]

I'm really skeptical of your argument. To start with, you mention that many presidents majored in History-- but the prestige came from the law degree that followed, not the history B.A. (which maybe is popular due to history's focus on political events).

Secondly, you suggest that the study of History centers around high level decision-making. I'm not really sure about that. Assuming you're right, this is also the case in business school, where the decisions being analyzed happen to concern private enterprise rather than the government.

I do like your point about the relevance of Silicon Valley history. But I suspect that it's much more important to be obsessive and passionate about a piece of technology than to know the story behind previous attempts. Palmer Lucky rebooted VR with incredible dedication to the product, not an academic understanding of the field.

[winReInstall]

The basic assumption of history being made by decision makers is wrong. Such history is made - under good circumstances, yes. If a surplus exists and no internal oppossition rears its head, due to economic stress.

As soon as the economic limits of a system are reached though, leaders are just as the population under the influence of the "physics of the situation". Which is shaped by human instincts, retardations reacting to a percieved "world turned hostile". Meaning, as soon as things go bad, the decision space is very harshly restricted and the consequences are often very much out of control for those in power deciding.

If humanity were a vessel, as soon as storm draws closer, the steering wheel breaks.

[bombcar]

This is broadly correct - the truly great leaders of history are rarely studied, because they noticed the current situation well in advance and adjusted things to avoid it.

Same how the best ship captains are the ones who never entered the storm, not the ones that somehow survived.