Also: you chose the way it’s presented. I’ve always been into history (mainly ancient Egypt and medieval Europe) since I was old enough to hold a picture book but I absolutely hated most history classes in school because the presentation wasn’t right for me. They made us memorize dates, names and what specific event caused a certain war but in the end, those don’t really matter that much.

The important thing to take away from history is the big picture and ironically, the best way for me to get that is by listening to a bunch of individual, personal stories and figure out how they fit together. These days, I listen to a weekly history podcast (shout out to “Geschichten aus der Geschichte” for those who speak German). For most episodes, I still won’t remember individual names or dates but pretty much every episode there are a few moments where I go “oh yeah, they mentioned that aspect in an earlier episode” even if they don’t point it out explicitly. I’ll never remember what year the second defenestration of Prague was or which Emperor it was directed against but after listening to a couple of episodes that roughly relate to that, I will forever remember the broad strokes about what caused the Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century which superficially was about conflicts between Catholics and Protestants but on a deeper level centered around the question who would rule Bohemia and the Empire as a whole.

I went to college, I’m way over 30. Buying a house is a vague dream.

It’s absolutely essential. Otherwise every single defendant would claim “I’m sorry, your honor. I didn’t know that murder/rape/stealing is illegal”. It’s almost impossible to prove or disprove general knowledge so we must assume - at least from a legal perspective - that everybody knows the law if we want to apply that law at all. Of course that doesn’t mean that any random person on the street needs to be familiar with every single law that applies to forestry but that they are required to read up on those laws before they pick up a chainsaw and head into the forest. There may be a few obscure laws that could apply to you without your knowledge but those are mostly so low stakes that we can give people a warning for the first offense and then reasonably assume they will know and follow that law in the future.

Now, that all applies to ignorance of the law. On the other hand, there is ignorance of your own actions which indeed can get you out of a conviction because it indicates a lack of intent. A simple example: if you visit someone and on the way out, you grab their jacket because of your own because they look similar, it’s very likely that you haven’t done anything illegal, it was just a mistake. Same if you’re not aware that something you’re doing might endanger others. Those might still get you in trouble for negligence but one could reasonably construct a case where you do something that looks perfectly safe to you but out of pure coincidence ends up killing someone. In those cases, you’re clearly not guilty of a crime.