It's usually done in bulk, so the overall payoff is the combination of value and number of targets, but the effort is typically sublinear with the targets. Something easier to attack but relatively low in number is not as juicy as something a bit harder (where the effort is mostly a one-off up-front rather than per target) but having many, many more targets.
Look more carefully at that 50 to 70% figure. It is exaggerated (or at least misleading to directly compare) because the usually cited studies are assuming an arrest with a shockable rhythm (and timely, and correct AED application), but only 30 to 40% of out of hospital cardiac arrests have a shockable rhythm, so the overall survivability is not over 50%. Practically speaking even with an AED present its more like 20-30% and that is just survivability, not taking into account long term deficits.
They're cheap enough now for normal people to own one.
I carry one in my car as well as a bleed kit, and some other bits and pieces I'm qualified to use (oropharyngeal airways and a bag valve mask respirator).
It's because units up to hours are of a fixed size, but days in most places are only 24h for ~363/365 days of the year, with some being 23h and some being 25h.
(This is ignoring leap seconds, since the trend is to smear those rather than surface them to userspace.)
The map iteration order was always "random", but imperfectly so prior to Go 1.3. From memory, it picked a random initial bucket, but then always iterated over that bucket in order, so small maps (e.g. only a handful of elements) actually got deterministic iteration order. We fixed that in Go 1.3, but it broke a huge number of tests across Google that had inadvertently depended on that quirk; I spent quite a few weeks fixing tests before we could roll out Go 1.3 inside Google. I imagine there was quite a few broken tests on the outside too, but the benefit was deemed big enough to tolerate that.
Lol to me it looked like part 2 wasn't written yet, but I clicked it anyway just to check and the page loaded, so I read it. No real downside in getting a 404.
It's what we'd use `&=` for nowadays. Note that the "B" language had these sorts of operators around the opposite way for how they appeared in "C" (e.g. read https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/kbman.html).
