Pride flags.

Edit: Also the Esperanto Flag.

It's explained multiple times in the video that Mansell has considered suing, but the most likely outcome of that is he pays a lawyer upwards of $60k to get <<100k in awarded compensation, then struggles to collect. The new franchise owners threatened exactly this. It's a classic and well known (and exploited) problem with our legal system.

https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=1029 talks about the distinction between civil and criminal here (and the whole video is good, worth a watch). There's not exactly an either-or distinction like it's commonly presented. The police can+probably should have investigated the initial refusal to return the legos as criminal theft.

Maybe think of this as removing a long-standing distraction or irritant. Like turning down the music from 120 decibels to 80 while you're trying to work.

It's like saying 'tobacco allegedly causes cancer' - the proof is very public and available. The typical reason for saying it like that is to indicate you don't believe it.

They're offering 50% cash and 50% stock. At an eBay valuation of 56B: 20B of cash will come from their creditor, TD Bank. 8B will come from GameStop itself. 28B will come in the form of stock from the resulting entity, which will own eBay and presumably have a valuation north of 56B.

The resulting entity may end up having 50% or more of it's equity allocated to the existing eBay shareholders. This is normal for a M&A where a smaller company buys a larger one.

The fact that investors are giving GameStop money is a good thing for GameStop; It is a signal of confidence. It is not a detriment like you try to position it.

https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/202...

He has to hit both the market cap and EBITDA for each tranche of his compensation plan to vest. He could do this by growing the core business, or by doing a merger like the proposed eBay one. Even if such a merger was very dilutive, even value destroying, it could help him vest a tranche he otherwise would not, for more value than the dilution reduces his position.

To be absolutely clear, I hope+think in practice that he is aligned with shareholders, especially given that the market cap restrictions appear much easier to hit than the EBITDA ones, but it's important to be precise because there's so much misinformation going around.

So you're just outright accusing GameStop of fraud?

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/0001... page 36 of their filing with the SEC lists the cash and marketable equities.

The non-cash (stock) portion of the offer needs to be valued against the resulting entity, which will own eBay. This will likely result in current eBay shareholders owning half or more of the resulting entity. (Though we don't know specific numbers yet). That's normal for a M&A where the smaller company is doing the buying.

That's simply not true.

Profit excluding the interest from the cash in 2025 was ~110 million. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638026... page 27.

Yes, closing unprofitable stores reduces revenue. It also improves profit. You're describing... Good business.

You're entitled to your opinions about the products and the merger. We'll have to see how it plays out

Yes, in 2021 GameStop did sell shares to raise cash in a dilutive way. [1]

No, that is not being treated as profit or revenue.

Gamestop had ~418 million in profit in 2025. [2] A fraction of that profit does come from interest income. Ignoring that (say to value the business separate from the cash) they still made ~110 million in profit.

In my personal opinion (not financial advice) Gamestop with the cash it has today is a much more attractive investment than without. If you have worries about an economic downturn, it's a hedge. If you worry about GameStop being able to maintain it's current revenue/profit or volatility, it's runway. There's a variety of ways it reduces the risk of an investment.

[1] https://investor.gamestop.com/news-releases/news-details/202...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326380/000132638026... page 27 has the consolidated results.

They can and have used this power to effectively censor legal content. I don't think this sort of power is something that a private entity should hold. Being able to refuse service is fine for a random restaurant when there's 10 other options available, much less so for a duopoly that provides a key facet of modern life.

It's really strange that we de-facto allow the few large credit card networks (Visa, Mastercard) to effectively impose their own particular views and values on what sorts of businesses can process payments. The stigma+roadblocks against these "high-risk categories" generally doesn't come from the processors (like Stripe, Adyen), but are actually driven by the networks themselves, in response to lobbying by groups such as Collective Shout. https://nabesaka.com/visa-mastercard-deciding-content-legali...

Whatever you think about NSFW media or gambling in particular, you _should_ worry that Visa and/or Mastercard could decide tomorrow that they don't want to process payments for you and cause you to lose your livelihood.

I can implement a dependency cooldown for my org and benefit from it immediately. An upload queue gets its value from being done centrally and allowing security researchers early access and the ability to coordinate.