With how often he goes there, I’ve got a bad feeling about him…
I mean, he was always a spoiled rich kid but I’m pretty sure the inflection point was when he started selling propane weed killers as “flamethrowers” to fund his tunnel excavating scam.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Thin clients for cars.
3 Likes
IIRC, Musk was part of X.com, a forerunner/competitor of the company that created PayPal with which X.com merged.
1 Like
Please note: didn’t actually found the company
3 Likes
Oh no, those were “not a flamethrower” which was amusingly enough named that it didn’t hit my personal threshold of scam.
“all of whom are retroactively allowed to call themselves co-founders of the company”
Ok, but am I allowed to call them co-founders?
(point noted though, he didn’t found it, he was more of an early investor, early employee)
You can call them anything you like, doesn’t make it true, though.
I thought that they were only renamed to “not a flamethrower” after he was informed that he couldn’t call them flamethrowers because they’re not, and if they were he couldn’t sell them anyway.
1 Like
Actually given that he isn’t actually a founder, and that he sold a “not a flamethrower” (which I did find amusing), maybe I can successfully remember him as “not a founder” and refer to him that way in the future.
Monroney stickers are for new cars. It’s a nice document that explains what the car originally was equipped with. It says nothing about what’s in a used car.
Um, yeah. And you asked if the software items would be included on the sticker and I stated they would be if purchased as part of the initial vehicle build (new car). If a software upgrade was purchased later on for the vehicle (used car) then that would be indicated by a separate Tesla invoice document showing the VIN, upgrade option, price, etc. (which Tesla does generate for such transactions and readily provides to the end-customer). There are also current vehicle configuration documents that can be generated by Tesla, but I can’t speak to how accessible they are to an end-customer.
Right, that all makes sense. I’m just thinking that this entire discussion about the window sticker is irrelevant to a resale.
Well, if the software options/upgrades are assigned to the car, as opposed to the person paying for them, then it’s relevant in that whatever the car is configured with should persist from one owner to the next and any documentation about the options would be pertinent.
If Tesla is saying that such options/upgrades don’t belong to the car then that opens up another can of worms with purchasers possibly having a license claim and how such license can be transferred to another car, etc. As far as I’m aware, and in my experiences, this is why Tesla doesn’t do things this way. That’s why this story of Tesla deactivating a feature upon change in car ownership raises so many questions. Based on what Tesla is saying, I think the first thing to determine is if anyone actually paid for or otherwise rightfully acquired the option in the first place. Again, documentation in the form of a Tesla window sticker, invoice, etc.
whatever the car is configured with should persist from one owner to the next
That’s likely, but not something you should assume to be true. People modify their cars all the time either because they are enthusiasts or because they cheap out on repairs after damage. The window sticker is a historical document.
But this isn’t something that an end user can just unbolt from the car. Once the car has such software options Tesla makes it very clear that it’s tied to the car’s software profile/configuration. There’s no way for an end user to toggle these things off in the regular software interface. And even if an end user could remove such software options (either sanctioned by Tesla or by computer hacking), it would be fraud to sell the car as having such an option that was no longer present. This should go without saying.
The story says the car was advertised as having the option. Tesla says the option wasn’t paid for and they removed it as part of an audit. Again, documentation saying the option was paid for (or otherwise properly bestowed upon the car by Tesla for one reason or another) would be key to refuting Tesla’s statement.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
