I was not aware of those points. Thanks for providing evidence! While a bit salty and accusatory as I was literally going by the USA.gov's website.
So, can we please fix the USA.gov incorrect information now?
Edit: wait I was right she could run as all I said was she can't run as in right this second. She needs to be 35 and yes that would mean by Oct 13th as there is no cutoff date. So guess we were both right. Awesome.
To even run for president, not just be president, you are required to be 35.
Edit: to add the missing information above that I forgot to add...
If she chose to, since there is no cutoff date for putting in your Candidancy, when she turns 35 on Oct 13, she could at that very moment run for president. But she cannot run until then.
A similar reason why you can't vote if you turn 18 before the day of an election, as you wouldn't fall under the timeframe required to be registered; she can't register because she isn't 35, regardless IF she would be 35 before the inauguration.
I showed my proof, now show me yours. I'm willing to change my views if I am wrong but people down voting me without providing evidence means you are just as wrong as I am.
Not trying to start a fight or argument. I do not want to "spread misinformation" so please prove me wrong so I can learn and we can all move on.
Edit: please read the rest of this comment thread to get all facts and not blindly agree or disagree.
As pointed out by @lemonmelon@lemmy.world, she technically could run once she turned 35 on Oct 13, since there is no cutoff for running for president of the US before the election.
You can buy cyanide without restrictions online in the USA. Shows up easy on all toxicology reports so if you were dumb enough to poison someone, you would be found pretty easy.
I see your valid points. However, my point regarding backups being in a trust worthy area still stands. Idk why you would chance it by doing this. Besides that there are other reasons I will point out which I assume is their reasoning, statistically, is that Windows users tend to be a ton less savvy than Linux users, so they would be only backing up what is available on their system, and I bet on average they don't have more than 1TB drive with maybe 300gb if storage used that needs to be backed up, like pictures which is equivalent to the 1TB a month plan which I am assuming is the cost of the windows unlimited plan. If you want to screw over companies with exploits, please do so the evil/terrible companies; otherwise this makes you look like an asshole. My 2 cents, and no I don't work for them.
TL;DR - average windows user most likely uses no more than 300GB so offering an "unlimited plan" to them to make money on under-utilized plan makes business sense.
YEAH! Old man!