I think if you went even more pedantic you would come back again to the idea that it's right, the idea being that someone dies an untimely death, fine, but it t

I think if you went even more pedantic you would come back again to the idea that it's right, the idea being that someone dies an untimely death, fine, but it takes like 5 minutes for them to die and several of those minutes they are technically disabled. So then you get ultra pedantic about, maybe that doesn't make sense if you are vaporized over a timescale less than a human reaction time, 100ms or so, and probably that has happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or suicide bombers, or when the twin towers fell, or when a submarine catastrophically collapses, or certain falling deaths perhaps... But likely less than 0.5% of the people who have been alive, so when rounding to the nearest percent you would indeed say 100%. All of that is for lols, probably the original quote attached some sort of caveat that was lost in the note-taking, but even without it it's reasonable for the reader to be expected to add the necessary caveat, “ignoring people who happen to very suddenly die in the prime of their lives,...”