For me, Rust fundamentally doesn't offer anything that 1) I want and 2) Python doesn't already have. The language I want is a better version of Python, not a better version of C++.
Eg, Rust often gets criticized for it's Syntax (rather, lots of it, ::<>, etc.). Yet, this isn't a downside in Rust, it's merely an opinion.
I'd be curious though what you think these downvoted into oblivion criticisms are? The ones here have been well received, and are quite fair. I'd be curious to see a criticism that's not widely agreed upon.
Have you tried Nim? https://nim-lang.org/
Very Pythonic if you ask me.
julia> 2^64
-9223372036854775808
Based on your other comments, if you're OK with a more Ruby-flavored syntax, you could look at Elixir. Its designers put a lot of effort into pervasive immutability and a solid developer experience.
So it's not that your point isn't valid, but it can't be extrapolated to general safety or high-level-ness; this is a really specific feature to rest your decision on. Arguably Julia has an advantage here because you can easily check correctness of an algorithm using arbitrary precision types and then use machine types in production, which is pretty handy.
Another reason for saying so is because it's an example of performance meeting safety. Julia, Nim and Rust choose performance, ostensibly to score well on benchmarks which I think is irresponsible. Python choose safety which I prefer. In the future, these languages will again choose performance ("zero-cost abstractions") to preserve their benchmark rankings over essential safety and programmer ergonomics. Another area in which these languages make compromises for performance is in the legibility of stack traces.
It is true that Python doesn't do fractional arithmetic correctly which I think is a flaw. Newer languages should use rational arithmetic by default. 6/5 - 1 should evaluate to 1/5 not 0.19999999999999996.