Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
And it's just one car I see; some fat SUV that looks like it's about to give birth to a pair of sporty twins.
Edit: Darn, I actually only count 6 cars on mazdausa.com
Do you work for Mazda, or else how do you know? Is this intent published on the real site somewhere, which is what the user is trying to find in the first place when they try mazda.com?
Maybe this is just some webmaster that needs to have their ass fired.
Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do. I just tried half a dozen multinational corporations that are associated with well-known consumer brands, they all have a page at <name>.com or redirect to one. It is not in any way "bogus" to try that.
The mazda.com page doesn't even provide a clue as to where the expected site actually is; that's what is "bogus". For a second I was wondering whether Mazda actually own the domain, or is that someone squatting (yet using a Mazda logo favicon).
Not to have a page there which redirects the user to the real one, and just a permission error, comes across as astonishingly unprofessional, especially for a company of the proportions of Mazda. (If it was Uncle Bob's Pizza down the street, I might not think so as much.)
That used to be the case, but I would argue strongly that it is no longer. Now the obvious and normal thing to do is type "Mazda" into a search engine. In the USA, mazdausa.com is the top hit. (And Wikipedia is second.)
There's this thing called common sense. Either they have a broken "naked domain" homepage for months and they didn't notice, or their homepage is www.mazda.com.
>Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do.
OK, fine, whatever.
>Not to have a page there which redirects the user to the real one, and just a permission error, comes across as astonishingly unprofessional
Which is neither here, nor there, to the actual question of this subthread: whether they have cars on their homepage.
That they have the naked domain not redirect to www, doesn't mean their homepage is that and not the one they actually present, fill-in, and treat as such.
Who said mazda.com is the homepage, and not www.mazda.com?
You must be like paid not to get it or something?
The corporate and product sites you are talking about firstly (1) exist and (2) link to each other. "Hey, this is our corporate site; if you're looking for products, click here."
Can you find another company that has the same revenue figures as Mazda (multi-billion dollars), and that is a widely recognized consumer brand, which has a broken web page at their root domain that doesn't redirect or link to anything, or even greet the user in any way?
It's pretty weird.
When discussing a language which is defined by caching values, we sure do want to see how that looks like in practice.
A quick take on the front page can't possibly explain much about a language, maybe just a sample of syntax? I don't know why it would've been useful.
In my opinion a programming language landing page without code example is like a game's Steam store page without screenshots - it's cool to know it's a "fast-paced racing game" but that could apply to everything between Tux Racer and Gran Turismo.
TypeScript's website shows right at the top in a few lines how it makes an easy mistake in JS impossible. Zig's site has a nice example that gives you an idea of some added features, how it differs from C but still feels similar. Rust's website had an editable and runnable code snippet showing iterators and pattern matching (although for some reason they later replaced it with the phrase "blazingly fast" in the redesign).
I got bored after about 5 pages, everything presented there is the same as in any other language. I want to see what differentiates this language from others, not what's the same.
That is what a landing page of any new language must accomplish - sell the reader on the power of your unique features as fast as possible.