I am extremely doubtful of the claim that Zig eliminates 50% or more of memory safety problems.
It's OK to doubt claims/hopes about Zig, just as I doubt the claim that Rust can achieve more correct/secure programs than Zig for less effort. Without empirical data, there's really no way to know. So in the meantime, all there is to go on is personal appeal. But you cannot support your claim that Zig is "just like C" with the assumption that it is.
I think that, at the end of the day, there is what we might call an "ideological" difference between us. While we both accept that both language features and best practices — code reviews, tests, tools — reduce bugs, we draw the line of where it's worth to sacrifice one for the other in different places. It might also be the case that Rust's complexity doesn't sacrifice anything for you, but it does for me, as I'm uncomfortable with complex languages, and I think Rust easily makes the top four most complex "production" languages in history (together with C++, Ada, and Scala). So while even for me C is on the wrong side of my line (just as Idris is on the wrong side of yours), I reject extrapolating from C to Zig, because Zig makes many more guarantees at the language level, so without pertinent data about Zig, the question cannot be settled. If I thought Zig was "like C," I wouldn't have found it promising and so intriguing, either.
Having said all that, I don't want it to sound as if I'm willing to bet on Zig right now. I'm far too risk-averse for that. But I wouldn't bet on Rust right now, either. What it brings to the table doesn't offset, for me, its (still-)high risk. All I'm saying is that the revolutionary Zig hints at a promise of a new low-level language that could bring more to the table and justify the risk.
I guess we could summarise Rust's and Zig's core design hypotheses as follows: Even though both place the same emphasis on correctness, Rust doesn't compromise on memory safety (which, given what empirical data we do have, is an important component of correctness but certainly not equivalent to it), i.e. it adds all the sound language features needed to provide it, even at the cost of language complexity, while Zig doesn't compromise on language simplicity, i.e. it adds all the sound language features needed to provide memory safety up to the point they impact language complexity. I don't discount the possibility that there might be a language that could be safer than Zig yet less complex than Rust, or perhaps even as soundly-safe as Rust and as simple as Zig, but so far I haven't seen such a language.
Barring any empirical data, we cannot say which, if any, of those two approaches leads to better correctness (where by "better" I mean reaching the desired level of correctness needed for most low-level applications more cheaply), so we both lean on "ideology," where I prefer simplicity whereas you prefer sound guarantees — both of us in the name of correctness. I think we agree that both C and Idris are the wrong paths to correctness, but while we might reasonably disagree on the price we should pay for soundness, placing Zig's memory-safety in the same category as C's is just as exaggerated and misleading as placing Rust's soundness in the same category as Idris's.
By the way, I wouldn't at all be surprised if empirical research ends up finding no significant differences in correctness between the two, and, in fact, would guess it to be the most likely outcome given our inability to find significant bottom-line differences between "reasonable" same-generation languages so far.
Ada was "complicated" when it was released because it was being compared to C. Contrasting it against contemporary C++ or Rust, Ada 2012 is much simpler.
But, the fact that it has a test framework built in, and the test allocator fails when it detects memory problems (like a built-in valgrind) definitely puts it far above C in terms of making it easy to write correct code.
