Government lobbying (economic interests) to water down UN climate report

Umm, surely this needs some nuancing?!

What? Of course not. How is this relevant? We already correctly established before that the line cuts differently for different people, what more does this line of argument add to that?

This all seems very peaceable and humble. I wonder if this would have been the advice also bunch of centuries ago when the Black Death was making the rounds and the rumours likewise, in Strassbourg and other cities inciting hate against the bankers and Jews, held responsible for that inexplicable plague. "Let's be humble: we don't know whether it was the Jews or not, let's keep an open mind, etc."...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_persecutions_during_the_Black_Death

We could come up with plans for these problems too, if we'd perceive them as equally (or more) threatening - which, indeed, longer term they very well we might be. This line of reasoning is undermining the argument given in the beginning, that now we've discovered our capacity to act, we might want to rally it towards other problems, like the ones listed in this paragraph.

What? The question has already been answered above: societies have acted because of the very real threat of their medical systems being overwhelmed. None of the other problems present such an urgent threat so they aren't given the same precedence.

La toma de hidratos se puede desviar en una acumulación de grasa cuando las calorías totales consumidas sean superiores a nuestra capacidades, es decir, cuando nuestras reservas de hidratos están llenas el resto será azúcar que se irá transformando en grasa.

ya de por sí esta prohibido fumar en clase, como para fumarse un cigarro de marihuana delante de los almnos

I see her argument as an extension of Tim O'Reilly's essay "The Architecture of Participation" . And I see it as a Marxist way of viewing political and economic agency as a function of some idea substructure. Although I find it intriguing that Watters uses a mesh metaphor at the end of the post. We are enmeshed in rather than standing upon political and philosphical assumptions and axioms.

I cannot begin to say what "future-facing" means. I am reminded of an old George Carlin routine where he notes that a plastic Jesus in one's car is probably facing the wrong way. If Jesus is helping you, then he ought to be looking at the damned road, right, not you. I don't think we need to project onto the future a roadmap (template) especially one that is as waste-ridden and futile as 'school'. Talk about a manifestion of Eliot's wasteland. Rather I think we need to feedforward from the future. We need to imagine what we mean by content and context delivery and connected learning and the programmable web. Then we need to allow ourselves to be drawn toward that future as we live in the present. And we need to allow ourselves to modify that future present like a feedback loop.

learning as a process that develops the __.

You fill in the blank with your own expertise NOT HERS or any others. If this all about power and control then the ends and means must be about that as well, even to the point of arguing individually for the idea that content is king.

I am ok with quantifying this and even making a rough matrix/rubric of techquity, but I am unwilling to say unequivocally as best practice (shudder...) that a pencil is 'better' than an app. Each has its charms and the user's mileage may vary.

"the war of all against all"