There are also a ton of good critiques on /r/history, /r/askhistorians, and /r/anthropology. I can't remember which I've read. Ones like this are typical:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nr7xd/thoug...
Pretty sure if you wrote an IQ test where your standard population was a group of people living in a harsh jungle environment, urbanite Westerners would come off thick as pigshit.
Or an aptitude test for "How good are you at tracking cassowaries without being disembowelled by them".
I've read good dissections of what's wrong with Diamond's work, that link is not one of them.
I don't think Neil Diamond is wrong but it's kind of baby's first reading on the differences between groups in the world.
I think CGP Grey does a great job at communicating the actual meat of Guns, Germs, and Steel here https://youtu.be/JEYh5WACqEk
Anthropologists don't think much of him either.
Of course any historical theory of everything based on one factor is going to look silly if you read another. Most modern people haven't read Spengler or Brooks Adams or whatever the popular socialist books were in the 30s which attempt to explain everything.
History, of course, is path dependent, and the correct perception is probably something like "stuff is like this by accident."