4ce

The article gives another reason:

Authorities say the river will help expand agricultural land and reduce the need to import food and wheat.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February last year drove a global surge in wheat prices, leaving Egypt struggling as it is the world's biggest wheat importer.

In addition, in recent years there have been droughts in East Africa as well, which can't have been good for the amount of water the Nile carries, and the dam you mention just adds to the whole thing.

For those wondering like me where the water is supposed to come from:

Authorities have said that water for the artificial river will come from recycled agricultural drainage and groundwater.

This doesn't really strike me as a long term solution though, unless Egypt has vast reserves of groundwater.

coding has nothing to do with math

A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?

lesser function

Putting aside that this might be difficult to quantify, why do you think it matters? There are some groups of humans who exhibit severely diminished mental capacities compared to the average human (e.g. babies, severely mentally handicapped people, people in a coma, etc.). Would it be okay to eat them? Because I'm fairly confident that for whatever measure to compare cognitive functions you could come up with, we would be able to find at least some humans who perform worse on them than the average pig, for example.

different species

Why does this matter? As a hypothetical thought experiment, do you think it would be morally justified for us to eat aliens who are biologically very different from us but of comparative intelligence (or higher)? Or for them to eat us?

it’s the easiest, most accessible, most fulfilling, and healthiest way

Apart from the "fulfilling", which is arguably subjective, I don't think the rest is true. At least I don't see how not eating meat would be difficult or "inaccessible" in a significant way, and considering the last point studies regularly show that vegetarians and vegans are, on average, slightly healthier than other people if anything (which might be in part just correlation, but it does contradict your claim of meat being the "healthiest" way to get nutrients).

Fuck Tyson though, those bastards can go to hell.

On this we can definitely agree.

they are not sentient

Science disagrees with you here. Most of the animals being used for meat are in fact not just sentient, but also conscious:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.

-- From the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness

nature intended

Nature doesn't intend anything, it simply is. We are, in the grand scheme of things, not separate from nature, and in this sense everything we do is natural. If you're using "natural" to distinguish things from the results of human civilization, then eating animal products stemming from animal agriculture is just as "unnatural" as supplements, as both are products of civilization.

You can also install this userscript to automatically replace links to other instances to the local version on your main instance.

[...] often with hostile, mocking, or derogatory commentary. The accounts have featured hate speech and false claims [...]

Or even better: install the libredirect extension to do this automatically, not just for reddit.

https://piped.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs

https://piped.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=YRgNOyCnbqg

One of those, presumably.

Depending on what exactly you mean, you might be onto something referred to as structural realism in the philosophy of science. Citing from the intro of the wikipedia article:

In the philosophy of science, structuralism (also known as scientific structuralism or as the structuralistic theory-concept) asserts that all aspects of reality are best understood in terms of empirical scientific constructs of entities and their relations, rather than in terms of concrete entities in themselves.

For those who want to read more, there is also an article on the SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), and books like "Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized" by James Ladyman and Don Ross (2007) or "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" by Sunny Auyang (1995).

In particular, your "nothing exists" reminds me of this in "Every Thing Must Go":

a first approximation to our metaphysics is: ‘There are no things. Structure is all there is.’

According to wikipedia, prolonged exposure to wet-bulb temperatures above 35 °C means that you die. So 34.5 °C is still slightly below that limit, and presumably this was only the maximum during one day, i.e. it wasn't prolonged. The problem arises when you can't cool your body at any point during the day for a few days, which I naively imagine to be similar in effect to running a high fever that just doesn't go down. And there is a serious risk that the temperature rise due to the climate crisis could lead to such conditions (several consecutive days with wet-bulb temperatures above 35 °C) regularly, especially in the tropics, if global mean temperatures rise by more than 1.5°C (see e.g. here). Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few (in particular old) people did in fact die due to the heat.