My opinion is the opposite, to the point I would argue that anyone advocating for multithreading for reasons other than executing things in parallel on different cores is extremely dangerous and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a serious codebase.
Rust pretty much alleviates these dangers. At least no memory safety bugs because of multithreading. Logic bugs are still possible, of course, but the channel API and the scoped thread API in the standard library do help with those.
That is not true at all, "fearless concurrency" gives no valuable guarantees at all and is widely seen as one of the worst concurrency models in literature.
I don't dispute that, but I thought you were having C++ with threads as the starting point, in which case Rust very much gives you valuable guarantees.
I probably wouldn't go as far as saying "extremely dangerous" but I do agree. For the most popular use case (i.e. web services) a thread per core with an event loop in each thread is the best model.
