Which translated into English script (phonetically accurate to mimic my pain upon reading this) reads:

"I hav becum obsessd with a consept noan as "jonlok"! its th hidn luv storee ov sherlok hoams and jon wotsun. thay are pure bois and I luv them"

Cactus leather is "cactus fiber, mixed with various compounds to form a bioresin, which is then poured over a polyester carrier," or, in other words, it's plastic + some cactus material, being deceptively marketed as though it is made entirely from cactus.

Apple leather is "dehydrated apple waste combined with polyurethane," or, in other words, it's plastic + some apple material, being deceptively marketed as though it is made entirely from apples.

Cork leather is "thin sheets of cork which are bonded onto a fabric backing, usually made of polyester, using a polyurethane adhesive" or, in other words, it's plastic + some cork material, being deceptively marketed as though it is made entirely from cork.

Pineapple leather is "pineapple fiber based felt combined with polyurethane," or, in other words, it's plastic + some pineapple material, being deceptively marketed as though it is made entirely from pineapple.

The closest I was able to find to a non-plastic "vegan leather" is mushroom leather, which is made from compressed mushroom mycelium. That compressed mycelium is biodegradable, which is more than you can say about basically anything else on this list, except it's also extremely fragile and falls apart in pretty much any context you'd want to use leather, and so to increase its durability it's usually – you guessed it – combined with polyurethane, which means that while you can make a biodegradable leather-feeling material completely out of mushrooms, almost all of the mushroom leather that you can actually buy is really plastic + some mushroom material, being deceptively marketed as though it is made entirely from mushrooms.

IT'S PLASTIC, FOLKS

and

"being a woman isn't a feeling or a connection, it is a reality"

Short answer, NO. Hating another person is sinful. It gets more complicated when we dive into the other side of hating actions. If you hate what someone does, that's perfectly fine. If you hate someone and their very being, that is not okay.

Short answer: dark as hell, and two of the seven testimonies that it sank intact were senior officers

Slightly longer answer, but not as long as I would like because I'm sleepy:

In On A Sea of Glass, they analyze 149 survivor statements (a little under 1/4 of all survivors). 84 people made no mention of the breaking, 58 either said it DID break or overheard people discussing it breaking, and 7 said it did NOT break. One of these seven was Charles Lightroller who was a senior officer ("these boats might buckle/i'll shoot you all like dogs" guy in the movie btw) and he was soooo sure that it sank intact that it overshadowed the majority (which, also, were majority women and children and what would they know about boats etc etc). I've also seen chatter about him having insisted on it because he was trying to save face for White Star Line (if the ship has broken up, that would imply that their ships were built like ass).

No unicorn was ever born who could regret

I mean, I think I was also mind-blown by the fact that people have been talking and writing about aliens for all of recorded history, even before there was any scientific precedent to guess that they could exist.

But that very thing (asking questions without a scientific precedent) was instrumental to proto-scientific thought ever becoming a formalized scientific method. These guys had a baseline for asking questions. So there are these scholars in the 1600's seriously articulating ideas like "So if God created the universe, doesn't that mean it's likely that every planet is inhabited, since it would be created for a purpose?" And "No, no, that doesn't make sense, Jesus would have to come to every planet and die, and that would be messed up." And then "Okay, but what if the people on other planets never sinned?"

And they speculate in great detail about the composition and environment of the other celestial bodies, and it was a real paradigm shift for my mind because of just how little they were working with. They had to debate questions that never occurred to me because I took the foundational knowledge for granted, like "Could the Sun be inhabited?" They thought that maybe if you viewed the Earth from outside, the outer atmosphere would appear bright like the Sun from a distance, so the Sun might be the same "kind" of celestial body as Earth.

I think we often misrepresent the misconceptions of the past too—the geocentric universe wasn't accepted just because of the Bible, it was also because we hadn't cracked chemistry yet and we didn't know how gravity worked, and our models had to explain why everything seemed to be attracted to the center of the Earth.

like, chemistry and biology are fundamentally built from things that aren't directly observable without certain technology that is very difficult to make. We can't directly observe microorganisms using any of our senses. We can't directly observe how chemical elements are different. The guys who first cracked important parts of chemistry did so through stuff like evaporating the solids out of gallons and gallons of human piss.

"rusalki are by definition no man’s women in this perspective, they are stuck between the maiden-phase and bride-phase forever [...] washing, moistening, and combing of their hair might thus be a symbolic representation of the endless wedding preparation that will never occur"

"a narrative representation of the desperate desire to fulfill the role that was denied to them in a real life."