I think that's too generous to the author given the other mistakes in the article, but sure, if you expand the meaning beyond regular memory safety, then it bec

I think that's too generous to the author given the other mistakes in the article, but sure, if you expand the meaning beyond regular memory safety, then it becomes a mixed picture: Rust protects from some race conditions, but other types of parallel code must use 'unsafe'. And as mentioned before some data structures can be done safely in C# but not in Rust. It is definitely false for the author to say Rust is "superior to C# in regards to better memory protections", in any definition of "memory protections".