This analogy is really more like dogmatic Rustacean-ism than actual truth. Rust has it's merits. However, it's a tired language. It doesn't maintain very good stability due to it's ever-evolving compiler which makes it almost unusable in anything but a "move fast and break things" environment. It's too particular, making development a burden and interrupting flow. Most importantly, the community is absolutely exhausting to listen to and this post is a perfect example.

C can be dangerous, yes. No one is denying that. C is also extremely stable, fast, and a "known-known". With proper discipline that any experienced developer of ANY language will have C can be very safe. Most, if not all, dangerous errors can be found and fixed simply by understanding how to use valgrind. With the advent of modern CI/CD it's never been easier to remember to valgrind your code.

C is probably the first language I would use in an environment I cared a lot about. For example, if binary size, availability of libraries, competency of programmer, etc would be in my list of concerns I would use C. I take particular offense to the "RNG" part of your analogy. C errors are not random at all. They are always the developer's fault and are often very predictable (use-after-free, poor array hygiene, etc). Despite the ever-evolving condition of post-C religions (Go, Rust, etc) there are only a handful of languages that fit the bill for a so-called serious systems project. C, C++, Java, and C#. You simply will not find a better library ecosystem and community of highly tenured developers to draw from for at least another decade in other languages.