Whatever on the 'yelling'. As to the machine failure, please explain how such a reactor will fail. Keep in mind that the fissile rods are at of the top of the inner sink, which has a number of thermal plugs that simply melt at 805C, allowing the liquid thorium fuel to drain below. The rods without thorium around will not heat up enough to melt down. So those can be on their own. Once the thorium is drained to the outer sink, it no longer is exposed to vast amounts of neutrons.
So, how will this fail? Because they have already tried to force a failure by simply stopping the circulation and walking away.
I would have to see the design of the reactor. But if there is one thing an engineer would never say - it's what you have said about this. Imperfect beings cannot create perfect devices. If anyone working for me, came in and told me of this perfect reactor, I would suspect they believed in perpetual motion as well. Your hubris is exactly how we get into trouble.
Or are the safeguards working against the product?
According to the summary they work.
Looking at the paper on this, they are about half the energy density of modern Lithium batteries. We'll have to see if they can bring those numbers up.
you do realize that in the early days of flying that many ppl died because it was DANGEROUS. Now, it is one of the safest modes of transportation.
That's kind of a non sequitur though. An airplane is a quite localized problem if it goes down. Even then, there is only so much energy available for any destructive fire, or explosion ( in most cases a fire)
Did they build it KNOWING that it was dangerous? Oh yeah. They knew it was dangerous. Just like we know that driving cars is dangerous, or trains, and planes, etc. They are ALL DANGEROUS, BUT CONTROLLED. Nuke engineers work to control all of the edge cases.
So are you saying that it is no longer possible to have an accident in a modern nuclear power reactor? That everything is just under control? I'll forgive you for yelling at me, by the way. When you describe any accident as an edge case, its not a good look.
Get this and get it straight, because I'm not arguing that the old GE Boiling water reactors were unsafe. I'm arguing that humans are not capable of pulling off the needed safety. The GE BWR reactors ther would be running well today, safely powering Japan, if not for the non-reactor based human installed failure points.
And despite your yelling, I do not believe that humans have gained any smarts that will allow them to keep that genie in the bottle. Spewing radiation from a broken reactor is a symptom, not the base issue
Edge cases. You are trying to fit me into some anti-nuc straw man. I'm not anti nuclear power. I'm only skeptical that humans can control it because the people in charge are more worried about expediency and cost than safety.
There's a good solution to the issue with alerts and Trump tweets. Just uninstall those applications.
But then where are they going to get their recreational outrage from?
For me, reading articles like this. Even if you believe nuclear war is going to break out any second now, receiving presidential tweets isn't going to give you enough of a heads-up to avoid it.
Thanks for replying to AC. I'm cutting off at 2 today, and if you hadn't replied, I would have missed the term "Recreational Outrage".
Typical americans, they just love their blame culture.
Now they must have something to blame for lack of attention. It's not my fault, it was my phone!
I'm sure there will be a specialist branch of therapy available for you all.
That branch of therapy is located right beside the Bigoted European treatment office.
Well, you can deal with that with some discipline. And by 'discipline', I mean teaching discipline to others.
I had a millennial guy try to train me that way. His "orders" were "Don't call me, don't leave voicemal. Don't email me, I won't answer. I only accept texts."
I took a nice long walk to his office and explained very politely that we had technical problems to work on that won't work in text form, and he would either take my phone calls, or every time I needed to interface with him, I would take that walk across the building to visit him personally, and not be at all happy about the waste of my time. And if he had an issue with that, I would be accompanied by the director.
He decided that taking my phone calls wasn't that bad after all.
Healthy people don't have a problem with this. She has a form of OCD. Look it up.
By the way, you are correct, other than a little strong on the "healthy people" aspect.
The telephone is just what brought out her symptoms, and she was unable to cope with it. I've managed to deal with computers and smartphones for a long time, and simply turn off notifications for everything, and if an application is badly behaved, it goes away.
I've done this because when I'm working a problem, I'm totally immersed in it, and find deep concentration is a plus - I'm probably the opposite of her mental processing.
She just needs to use technology in a manner that is conducive to the way her mind works.
The people who really fear stuff like this are the progressives who are convinced that wealth is not something that is created but just fought over. To them the pie is always the same size and if someone gets a bigger piece, that means someone else got a smaller piece. Robots will not create any wealth. They will just take it from real people, right?
But let's just imagine your world, where everyone is aggressivly pursuing wealth. Will everyone be wealthy? The aggressive accumulation of wealth means that you want to have more wealth than others. If everyone is wealthy, everyone is also poor.
Everyone knows that wealth does not 'trickle down', right?
Wealth is an equation. There needs to be production and consumption. The rich and the poor will naturally settle into their respective camps. But when one group has dominion over the other, unbalance results. And no, trickle down doesn't work. I amassed a bit of lucre by investments and staying out of debt. And now, whenever I get more, I do the same with it. The only way it could be said that my wealth creates jobs is by stuff I buy. Which except for an extra vacation or two, is the same as when I didn't have much money. The idea that I am a job creator is pretty funny.
Your idea equates to the cocept that if one person has all of the money, they will rain down prosperity uopn all of the rest of us, who by the same token have nothing.
And by the way, many of those who have a lot of money will come after other people's money, so the 1 percent will eat each other eventually. Remember, greed is good.
IIUC, a part of the problem was lack of adequate drainage. From my understanding the standby generator was not merely submerged by the tsunami, it was left standing in a pool of water that didn't (rapidly?) drain away.
That is true. The emergency generators were in a place that was going to be flooded when the wave that was going to happen breached the seawalls.
If I'm correct, the problem was not only an improper sea wall, and not merely improper siting of the backup generators, but even basic things like drainage for the backup generators.
Well - you are correct. What wasn't criminal about the plant's design was high grade hubris. And note that the cause of the problems wasn't the reactors themselves. It was all that external stuff around them that caused the reactors to have their problems.. Side note - GE's designs specified the backup generators be built in the basement of the buildings. There was concern by some engineers that they would be prone to flooding. But management at TEPCO decided to stick strictly to GE's plan. So that even complicates things more.
And that is exactly why I have to chuckle when some folks talk about how safe newer designs are. Okay. Well, between us chachalacas, the BWR reastors uses are not all that unsafe as long as the support equipment is designed and built properly. There is another Power Plant known as Fukushima Daini or Fukushima II. It is 12 Km south and shut down without incident. But they were lucky. Nuc plants should never be built with luck as a design factor. But as noted, if the infrastructure wasn't bitched up by the quake and Tsunami, it just take a few days to safely shut down the reactor post scram.
P.S.: Many of the plants being operated in the US are beyond their designed lifetime, and being run at higher power levels than they were rated for. I hope people are checking on their backup power supplies and refrigeration.
Every time one of these plants goes kablooey, we learn a little. Most of the US plants are well designed, and not situated as precariously as Fukushima. But every life extension, every power level increase is a little concerning.
And more than just one or two random people - show that there was any sort of serious belief among the engineering team responsible for the plant that the seawall wasn't high enough.
Historical records show that the reactor site was hit by tsunami that was higher than the seawalls that were emplaced. And if we want to be skeptical about historical measurements, there is actual physical evidence from the rubble line left by tsunami.
All this I found with about 8 hours of internet searching. Granted, it would have taken longer in pre internet days, but the data existed before the 20th century.
So when a wall is built in an area that historically receives tsunami of bigger height, it was either irresponsible for lack of research, or irresponsible for being over-ridden. Either way, it just shows what happens when humans try to confine large amounts of energy in small places, and ignore the facts of the situation.
Fukishama was a result of 2 things; a management that cut corners by doing the least possible, AND a major slowdown in building new reactors that are much safer.
There were many factors involved in the Fukushima problem. The first was location.
Its kind of funny though, Are you saying that the Designers of Fukushima knew their reactor design was unsafe? You don't have to answer, because that's a trap.
We can postulate all day about how this won't ever happen again because modern reactors are safe. But people tend to remember that they were told how safe those old reactors were. So when we tell them how safe the new ones are, you'll have to forgive them if they are a little skeptical.
Given Fukushima is still making news I'm sure it's a better feeling roll of the dice for them.
Amazing that a simple and insightful post - illustrating what is almost certainly the core of the problem - gets marked -1 troll. So I resurrected it
Slashdot's actual nuclear power fans must be feeling very upset by this news.
This is just how life works folks. Nuclear power, which had the promise of being cheap and reliable, has come up against a trifecta of problems. The one everyone thinks of is of course is the kablooey factor. As long as there are humans in the loop, and as long as safety compromising decisions can be made by people who are more concerned about expediency or cost, there is a lot of energy we're trying to hold in a tiny space that is itching to get out, and trying to find a failure point. Some times it does. That's a kablooey.
The second and third issues are that other forms of energy extraction are getting better, while energy using devices are getting more efficient.
Something else is coming down the pike as well. This is a bit of a race condition. Will fusion power be realized before people just decide the whole grid is best avoided?
Same old story. Am I the only one who noticed how long it took for Macintosh to support multiple full-screen programs and easy switching between them, which Amiga had already done starting in 1985?
Thank you for sharing your completely pointless factoid. Many noticed, almost no one cares.
It had a female lead who was more than capable of taking on the bad guys. Yes, there was a bit of the "Dirty Dozen" element, but Pine's character existed more for romantic tension and to help this strange woman in a strange land adapt to very new surroundings.
It didn't have bra burning scenes, if that's your idea of feminism, but I know one thing, my youngest daughter absolutely loved that film and Gal Gadot has become quite a role model for young girls and women, so if that's not a female-positive message, the very essence of feminism, then I don't know what is.
But don't believe just me:
I'm certain that Ms Gadot is a fine person. But she is just another pop culture icon, and just another Disney Princess character.
You might be satisfied with your daughter trying to emulate a Disney princess, but just remember, little girls who worship pop culture may turn out in later years decide that Miley Cyrus or Kat Von D is who she wants to take after now.
And if that is female positive, well, good luck.
If a girl needs a positive female role model, Howbow Jane Goodall? She's even a vegetarian if that means anything to you. Howbow NASA's human computers, all female, and many of them of dark pigmentation. Many of the male astronaiuts would refuse to launch if the ladies did not approve the math - trusting them more than any other method of computation.
Hedy Lamar, who escaped from the Nazis, and was part of the group that invented spread spectrum radio technology. She was also stunningly beautiful, if that means something to a young lady.
Amy Mainzer - Astronomer My personal favorite, Laura Danley, another astronomer who radiates smarts competence and pleasant to be around.
I'm going to stop now, because there are actually a lot of really positive and strong female role models, but I think you like the pop star type.
And no - I do not consider that a positive role model. But it's a free country.
Is there a special word for a female who believe it's :
- cool to be a girl
- doesn't believe the world is out to get her
- doesn't need every company in the world to prove how pro-woman they are by treating women as if they need to be told how special they are until it starts sounding like how we call disabled people "Special"
- doesn't think it's cool that she has to wonder whether she got the job because she's qualified... or worse...
- doesn't think it's cool that a lot of her colleagues around her believe she got the job to fill the quota
I worked with several women engineers and scientists. That's their attitude, and I approve wholeheartedly. You just don't get very far at the higher levels of STEM without a good attitude. And that is male or female.
The fact that you point to Ripley as your capable female lead is not a good thing, she was created almost 40 years ago.
Whoosh. The fact that Sigourney Weaver played Ripley, a woman up against some awful circumstances and overcame them by using smarts and occasionally violence is exatly the point. It's been done before.
The only difference is that we went to the movie, enjoyed it, and thought "wow - awesome movie, and didn't act like it was empowering women, but that it showed a powerful woman who was pretty endearing to everyone.
It is no diss of Gadot in Wonder Woman. Wha tis is is a lot of people acting and talking like every single woman in every single movie has been portrayed as weak and mere sex objects, tools of the patriarchy, and Wonder Woman was groundbreaking, something never ever done before.
Which is to be blunt, utter bullshit. The Social engineering construct detracted from the movie, not do it any favors.
Olsoc is saying that Wonder Women deserves no accolades for breaking new ground on the feminist angle because "strong women" characters have been in cinema for a long time. In what way does what you wrote invalidate that point?
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever on the 'yelling'. As to the machine failure, please explain how such a reactor will fail. Keep in mind that the fissile rods are at of the top of the inner sink, which has a number of thermal plugs that simply melt at 805C, allowing the liquid thorium fuel to drain below. The rods without thorium around will not heat up enough to melt down. So those can be on their own. Once the thorium is drained to the outer sink, it no longer is exposed to vast amounts of neutrons. So, how will this fail? Because they have already tried to force a failure by simply stopping the circulation and walking away.
I would have to see the design of the reactor. But if there is one thing an engineer would never say - it's what you have said about this. Imperfect beings cannot create perfect devices. If anyone working for me, came in and told me of this perfect reactor, I would suspect they believed in perpetual motion as well. Your hubris is exactly how we get into trouble.
With all the battery advances, it would be nice to see at least 3-4 types of batteries, with the chemistry optimal for each application:
We kinda have that already.
Or are the safeguards working against the product?
According to the summary they work.
Looking at the paper on this, they are about half the energy density of modern Lithium batteries. We'll have to see if they can bring those numbers up.
First, Emphasis, is not yelling. Yelling is capping for a whole sentence, paragraph, etc. I cap a few words for emphasis. BIG difference.
This is emphasis Polite company does not use all caps except for acronyms or initialisms.
And that is just 1 example of the Gen IVs that pretty much can not fail.
The hubris is strong in you. Amazing, a machine that is incapable of failing.
you do realize that in the early days of flying that many ppl died because it was DANGEROUS. Now, it is one of the safest modes of transportation.
That's kind of a non sequitur though. An airplane is a quite localized problem if it goes down. Even then, there is only so much energy available for any destructive fire, or explosion ( in most cases a fire)
Did they build it KNOWING that it was dangerous? Oh yeah. They knew it was dangerous. Just like we know that driving cars is dangerous, or trains, and planes, etc. They are ALL DANGEROUS, BUT CONTROLLED. Nuke engineers work to control all of the edge cases.
So are you saying that it is no longer possible to have an accident in a modern nuclear power reactor? That everything is just under control? I'll forgive you for yelling at me, by the way. When you describe any accident as an edge case, its not a good look.
Get this and get it straight, because I'm not arguing that the old GE Boiling water reactors were unsafe. I'm arguing that humans are not capable of pulling off the needed safety. The GE BWR reactors ther would be running well today, safely powering Japan, if not for the non-reactor based human installed failure points.
And despite your yelling, I do not believe that humans have gained any smarts that will allow them to keep that genie in the bottle. Spewing radiation from a broken reactor is a symptom, not the base issue Edge cases. You are trying to fit me into some anti-nuc straw man. I'm not anti nuclear power. I'm only skeptical that humans can control it because the people in charge are more worried about expediency and cost than safety.
And quit yelling at people.
There's a good solution to the issue with alerts and Trump tweets. Just uninstall those applications.
But then where are they going to get their recreational outrage from?
For me, reading articles like this. Even if you believe nuclear war is going to break out any second now, receiving presidential tweets isn't going to give you enough of a heads-up to avoid it.
Thanks for replying to AC. I'm cutting off at 2 today, and if you hadn't replied, I would have missed the term "Recreational Outrage".
Typical americans, they just love their blame culture. Now they must have something to blame for lack of attention. It's not my fault, it was my phone! I'm sure there will be a specialist branch of therapy available for you all.
That branch of therapy is located right beside the Bigoted European treatment office.
Well, you can deal with that with some discipline. And by 'discipline', I mean teaching discipline to others.
I had a millennial guy try to train me that way. His "orders" were "Don't call me, don't leave voicemal. Don't email me, I won't answer. I only accept texts."
I took a nice long walk to his office and explained very politely that we had technical problems to work on that won't work in text form, and he would either take my phone calls, or every time I needed to interface with him, I would take that walk across the building to visit him personally, and not be at all happy about the waste of my time. And if he had an issue with that, I would be accompanied by the director.
He decided that taking my phone calls wasn't that bad after all.
Healthy people don't have a problem with this. She has a form of OCD. Look it up.
By the way, you are correct, other than a little strong on the "healthy people" aspect.
The telephone is just what brought out her symptoms, and she was unable to cope with it. I've managed to deal with computers and smartphones for a long time, and simply turn off notifications for everything, and if an application is badly behaved, it goes away.
I've done this because when I'm working a problem, I'm totally immersed in it, and find deep concentration is a plus - I'm probably the opposite of her mental processing.
She just needs to use technology in a manner that is conducive to the way her mind works.
We own them. Turn off the f*cking notifications
She tried doing that, but was distracted by notifications every time she tried figuring out how.
Your lack of understanding of the principles youre attempting to describe is pretty funny. Thanks for that
And with a one sentence statement, you completely demolish my argument. Thank you for the last laugh of the evening, ya coward.
The people who really fear stuff like this are the progressives who are convinced that wealth is not something that is created but just fought over. To them the pie is always the same size and if someone gets a bigger piece, that means someone else got a smaller piece. Robots will not create any wealth. They will just take it from real people, right?
But let's just imagine your world, where everyone is aggressivly pursuing wealth. Will everyone be wealthy? The aggressive accumulation of wealth means that you want to have more wealth than others. If everyone is wealthy, everyone is also poor.
Everyone knows that wealth does not 'trickle down', right?
Wealth is an equation. There needs to be production and consumption. The rich and the poor will naturally settle into their respective camps. But when one group has dominion over the other, unbalance results. And no, trickle down doesn't work. I amassed a bit of lucre by investments and staying out of debt. And now, whenever I get more, I do the same with it. The only way it could be said that my wealth creates jobs is by stuff I buy. Which except for an extra vacation or two, is the same as when I didn't have much money. The idea that I am a job creator is pretty funny.
Your idea equates to the cocept that if one person has all of the money, they will rain down prosperity uopn all of the rest of us, who by the same token have nothing.
And by the way, many of those who have a lot of money will come after other people's money, so the 1 percent will eat each other eventually. Remember, greed is good.
Oh - I forgot, big business crime is considered normal and good.
Seriously, HSBC might just be committing a damn fine crime by doing this..
Awp....There I go again - Any way to take little people's money is just good ethical business practice.
IIUC, a part of the problem was lack of adequate drainage. From my understanding the standby generator was not merely submerged by the tsunami, it was left standing in a pool of water that didn't (rapidly?) drain away.
That is true. The emergency generators were in a place that was going to be flooded when the wave that was going to happen breached the seawalls.
If I'm correct, the problem was not only an improper sea wall, and not merely improper siting of the backup generators, but even basic things like drainage for the backup generators.
Well - you are correct. What wasn't criminal about the plant's design was high grade hubris. And note that the cause of the problems wasn't the reactors themselves. It was all that external stuff around them that caused the reactors to have their problems.. Side note - GE's designs specified the backup generators be built in the basement of the buildings. There was concern by some engineers that they would be prone to flooding. But management at TEPCO decided to stick strictly to GE's plan. So that even complicates things more.
And that is exactly why I have to chuckle when some folks talk about how safe newer designs are. Okay. Well, between us chachalacas, the BWR reastors uses are not all that unsafe as long as the support equipment is designed and built properly. There is another Power Plant known as Fukushima Daini or Fukushima II. It is 12 Km south and shut down without incident. But they were lucky. Nuc plants should never be built with luck as a design factor. But as noted, if the infrastructure wasn't bitched up by the quake and Tsunami, it just take a few days to safely shut down the reactor post scram.
P.S.: Many of the plants being operated in the US are beyond their designed lifetime, and being run at higher power levels than they were rated for. I hope people are checking on their backup power supplies and refrigeration.
Every time one of these plants goes kablooey, we learn a little. Most of the US plants are well designed, and not situated as precariously as Fukushima. But every life extension, every power level increase is a little concerning.
I don't trust the management a bit.
And more than just one or two random people - show that there was any sort of serious belief among the engineering team responsible for the plant that the seawall wasn't high enough.
Historical records show that the reactor site was hit by tsunami that was higher than the seawalls that were emplaced. And if we want to be skeptical about historical measurements, there is actual physical evidence from the rubble line left by tsunami.
All this I found with about 8 hours of internet searching. Granted, it would have taken longer in pre internet days, but the data existed before the 20th century.
So when a wall is built in an area that historically receives tsunami of bigger height, it was either irresponsible for lack of research, or irresponsible for being over-ridden. Either way, it just shows what happens when humans try to confine large amounts of energy in small places, and ignore the facts of the situation.
Billions wasted, and an area contaminated. All because some jackass couldn't be bothered to pay for a couple thousand bucks in concrete and rebar.
But that is the way of management. Who hasn't had their decisions overridden by management and seen the bad results of that?
That's why we can't have nice things.
The incredible energy density of these reactors simply does not coexist with management and accountants, who are concerned with expediency and cost.
Fukishama was a result of 2 things; a management that cut corners by doing the least possible, AND a major slowdown in building new reactors that are much safer.
There were many factors involved in the Fukushima problem. The first was location.
Its kind of funny though, Are you saying that the Designers of Fukushima knew their reactor design was unsafe? You don't have to answer, because that's a trap.
We can postulate all day about how this won't ever happen again because modern reactors are safe. But people tend to remember that they were told how safe those old reactors were. So when we tell them how safe the new ones are, you'll have to forgive them if they are a little skeptical.
Given Fukushima is still making news I'm sure it's a better feeling roll of the dice for them.
Amazing that a simple and insightful post - illustrating what is almost certainly the core of the problem - gets marked -1 troll. So I resurrected it
Slashdot's actual nuclear power fans must be feeling very upset by this news.
This is just how life works folks. Nuclear power, which had the promise of being cheap and reliable, has come up against a trifecta of problems. The one everyone thinks of is of course is the kablooey factor. As long as there are humans in the loop, and as long as safety compromising decisions can be made by people who are more concerned about expediency or cost, there is a lot of energy we're trying to hold in a tiny space that is itching to get out, and trying to find a failure point. Some times it does. That's a kablooey.
The second and third issues are that other forms of energy extraction are getting better, while energy using devices are getting more efficient.
Something else is coming down the pike as well. This is a bit of a race condition. Will fusion power be realized before people just decide the whole grid is best avoided?
I suspect your basic problem is listening to advertising-funded radio. Don't you have alternatives, such as subscription-funded radio?
Of course. I was just pointing out that a 50:50 advertising to product radio is part of why OTA radio is dying.
Same old story. Am I the only one who noticed how long it took for Macintosh to support multiple full-screen programs and easy switching between them, which Amiga had already done starting in 1985?
Thank you for sharing your completely pointless factoid. Many noticed, almost no one cares.
It had a female lead who was more than capable of taking on the bad guys. Yes, there was a bit of the "Dirty Dozen" element, but Pine's character existed more for romantic tension and to help this strange woman in a strange land adapt to very new surroundings.
It didn't have bra burning scenes, if that's your idea of feminism, but I know one thing, my youngest daughter absolutely loved that film and Gal Gadot has become quite a role model for young girls and women, so if that's not a female-positive message, the very essence of feminism, then I don't know what is.
But don't believe just me:
I'm certain that Ms Gadot is a fine person. But she is just another pop culture icon, and just another Disney Princess character.
You might be satisfied with your daughter trying to emulate a Disney princess, but just remember, little girls who worship pop culture may turn out in later years decide that Miley Cyrus or Kat Von D is who she wants to take after now.
And if that is female positive, well, good luck.
If a girl needs a positive female role model, Howbow Jane Goodall? She's even a vegetarian if that means anything to you. Howbow NASA's human computers, all female, and many of them of dark pigmentation. Many of the male astronaiuts would refuse to launch if the ladies did not approve the math - trusting them more than any other method of computation.
Hedy Lamar, who escaped from the Nazis, and was part of the group that invented spread spectrum radio technology. She was also stunningly beautiful, if that means something to a young lady.
Amy Mainzer - Astronomer My personal favorite, Laura Danley, another astronomer who radiates smarts competence and pleasant to be around.
I'm going to stop now, because there are actually a lot of really positive and strong female role models, but I think you like the pop star type.
And no - I do not consider that a positive role model. But it's a free country.
Is there a special word for a female who believe it's : - cool to be a girl - doesn't believe the world is out to get her - doesn't need every company in the world to prove how pro-woman they are by treating women as if they need to be told how special they are until it starts sounding like how we call disabled people "Special" - doesn't think it's cool that she has to wonder whether she got the job because she's qualified... or worse... - doesn't think it's cool that a lot of her colleagues around her believe she got the job to fill the quota
I worked with several women engineers and scientists. That's their attitude, and I approve wholeheartedly. You just don't get very far at the higher levels of STEM without a good attitude. And that is male or female.
I wonder if it contributes to high levels of ambient violence in westernized cultures?
I wouldn't be surprised.
The fact that you point to Ripley as your capable female lead is not a good thing, she was created almost 40 years ago.
Whoosh. The fact that Sigourney Weaver played Ripley, a woman up against some awful circumstances and overcame them by using smarts and occasionally violence is exatly the point. It's been done before.
The only difference is that we went to the movie, enjoyed it, and thought "wow - awesome movie, and didn't act like it was empowering women, but that it showed a powerful woman who was pretty endearing to everyone.
It is no diss of Gadot in Wonder Woman. Wha tis is is a lot of people acting and talking like every single woman in every single movie has been portrayed as weak and mere sex objects, tools of the patriarchy, and Wonder Woman was groundbreaking, something never ever done before.
Which is to be blunt, utter bullshit. The Social engineering construct detracted from the movie, not do it any favors.
Olsoc is saying that Wonder Women deserves no accolades for breaking new ground on the feminist angle because "strong women" characters have been in cinema for a long time. In what way does what you wrote invalidate that point?
Exactly.