So intentional circumventing of safety measures and (cost) cutting corners is not possible sich the new tech?

Almost in every industry i can think of there are countless examples of how profit is traded for safety. Why should this be any different?

Safety measures which cannot be intentionally circumvented (except by planting a bomb, I suppose) predate Chernobyl by many years. The RBMK was a horrible design which threw away passive safety[0] for convenience and cost savings.

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

x2.

Modern designs for things that can fail dangerously incorporate features that cause the system to go down a branch that ends in a safe failure mode high up the tree rather than allowing the possibility of a less safe failure many more steps down the tree.

It's like how Uhaul overbuilds the living crap out of it's trailers then puts relatively (compared to the rest of the system) light duty tires on them. Better to have idiots blow out tires than other less safe failure modes.

Not sure what your point is.

My point is many technologies were thought of being safe untill you encounter this one error, iceberg, negligence.

Yeah, but at this point, I think the risks of modern reactors are understood well-enough to say with confidence that safety is not a major argument against nuclear energy.