Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model X' started by ranma64, Jul 25, 2018.
Just seen on Teslafi
Last version came with a bug making alarm automaticly reactivated with every new unlock/lock cycle. Was told they are working on a software update for this issue. Would guess that is included in this update
Probably just bug fixes to .26 i am assuming otherwise I guess it would be .28
Exactly. Weird we didn’t get 28 last week. Currently five cars where people are awake (but I’ve not received it yet) and all X’s.
Predict nothing in the release notes.
Received on my P100D S. "Minor fixes …"
Bingo. We’ll never know.
Maybe they are focusing on the fabled 9.0 version for release in August?
That’s a good point. We can hope. Since it’s due momentarily!
Just got this this morning.
boaterva was spot on - nothing new in the release notes.
no beep on car closing or opening like model 3 latest update?
I think you mean locking and that would be excellent. Maybe it’ll come with version 9?
That's a personal preference. If it comes, I hope it's optional, because I don't want it.
Oh, I'm sure (as sure as anyone can be when it comes to this place lol) that it will be optional. Look at every other setting on the cars. Folding mirrors, air suspension, etc. If you are used to it as it is, it should be optional, I agree. I just want to not have to walk backwards to be sure the car locks!
Be gone $ grubbing Unicorn
Unicorn died earlier.
You mean an artist that only wanted to be fairly compensated for his work?
I don't think that you have the whole story...
Then what part am I missing?
picked my my X75D yesterday, had an update pending so I installed it when I got home. I'm on 2018.26.3 be4b11e now, it seems like another small revision. not sure if it's worth another thread but there's one on the S forum about it..
I'm far from being a copyright lawyer and I absolutely think artist should be compensated for their work when applicable.
Reading all the stories related to that including analysis by people more involved in copyright law than me, the main takeaway points I kept are:
1- The 'infringing' artwork was not a copy of the original but a reproduction made by other means by a third party and is significantly different to an average observer.
2- The total number of Tesla cars sales generated or closed because of this unicorn is 0 so no profit was derived from it. It has influenced 0 buyers into buying the car and generating profit for Tesla, not even a little.
3- The total number of lost sales for the potter because of Tesla's use of the unicorn is 0
4- The total number of gained sales for the potter because of Tesla's use of the unicorn is > 0
5- The potter may have harmed is sales more by looking greedy in those circumstances than otherwise. Now that Tesla has completely removed the unicorn, we'll see...
Given those facts and other I didn't write down or remember, even if a copyright violation could be proved (very unlikely) the damage assessment would have been 0$. That's probably why Elon Musk called an eventual lawsuit lame. If we stick with the idea that the two artworks are indistinguishable, in my opinion, it could be considered as product placement by the potter and if anything, he should have been paying tesla (a very small amount) for the publicity. Thus, it is STILL lame.