> you often lose several-folds due to going with a simpler parallelism model for fear of Segfaults, which you could fearlessly do in a higher-level language.

Wait - what was that part about Amdahl's law?

Also segfaults are unrelated to parallelism.

Amdahl's law was about the potential speedup from going parallel being limited by parts that must be serial. Nothing controversial here - many tasks can be parallelized just fine.

My point is that you often see a simpler algorithm/data structure in C for fear of a memory issue/not getting some edge case right.

What part are you disagreeing with? That parallel code has more gotchas, that make a footgun-y language even more prone to failures?