I'll take up the argument that they shouldn't have shipped, sure. Bear in mind that I myself don't actually care that much, but I do think we need devil's advo

I'll take up the argument that they shouldn't have shipped, sure. Bear in mind that I myself don't actually care that much, but I do think we need devil's advocates for this sort of thing on occasion. Easter eggs started at a time when software and games were shipped on cartridges, disks, or other media. If there was extra room available, it didn't affect the user experience to include them (performance was always very much in mind back then). Today, however, we see a couple of changes: First, apps and games are mostly downloaded. Easter eggs take up additional space, slowing down your download in the best case, and eating away at data caps in the worst cases. So you're already doing something that is somewhat hostile to the user. Second, both Mozilla and Google position their browsers as fast and lightweight. Does including Easter eggs actually help further either of those claims? Most likely not. One Easter egg might not really impact performance at all, but at what point does it become a problem? There are probably different teams working on the browser, and if each of them are adding Easter eggs, how long before those start to affect performance, whether because it's cruft or because many users are on older systems that don't have as much memory as the typical developer is used to? This at least bears consideration.