Anything called a fork or spoon counts, but things similar to forks or spoons but not called as such do not.
I made this kind of market last year. However, I couldn't continue the series. So here is a new market for you all. Link for original: https://manifold.markets/100Anonymous/are-there-more-chairs-than-tables
Give any arguments in the comments. The final answer will be decided by these arguments.
Update 2026-03-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Spooning (the cuddling action) does not count as a spoon, as it is a verb and was never a spoon to begin with.
Update 2026-03-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Things that are "forked" (e.g. a snake's tongue) may count as forks, though the creator is open to compromise if traders disagree.
Update 2026-03-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A fork in the road counts only if it is clearly marked as a potential diversion to a different but still mainstream route — not every exit or intersection.
Update 2026-03-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Things that are forked only count as forks if it makes sense to call them a fork (e.g. a snake's tongue does not count as a fork).
Update 2026-03-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): DNA replication forks do not count as forks.
Update 2026-03-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A fork in the road counts only if it is paved or named. Exceptions may be made for splits that are very famous or commonly known in the community as a fork.
Update 2026-03-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess forks count, but only if they occur in an actual game (not hypothetical or theoretical games).
Update 2026-03-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess forks are counted per usage (i.e., only forks that actually occur in a real game are counted, not theoretically possible forks).
Update 2026-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess forks in AI tactical drills count, but forks from AI search trees do not. Estimated total chess forks (including AI tactical drills): ~70–85 billion.
Update 2026-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Theoretical/hypothetical units of measurement do not count. For example, expressing a volume of water in teaspoons does not create actual spoons — only physically existing objects count.
Update 2026-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess forks are counted only from actual games played, not theoretical positions. The estimated total number of chess forks is approximately 90 billion.
Update 2026-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Spoons (used by people with chronic illness) only count if they are actual, physically existing spoons of a particular substance — not theoretical or metaphorical spoons.
Update 2026-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Microscopic fork-like structures (e.g., tubulin structures in the body) do not count as forks because they are not actually called "forks."
Update 2026-03-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Spoonbills count as spoons, with an estimated global population of ~500,000.
Update 2026-03-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess tablebase forks count as forks, including positions stored on hard drives (e.g., in tablebases like op1-tables.info).
Update 2026-03-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Software forks count, but only those that were recorded/stored. Estimated count: ~10^11 forks (after accounting for deletions from cache).
Update 2026-03-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Sporks count as both a spoon and a fork (counted once for each), but since this cancels out, they have no net effect on the outcome.
Update 2026-03-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is reconsidering whether non-tactical forks (i.e., forks that don't provide a tactical advantage) count in chess. This may affect the estimated total number of chess forks.
Update 2026-03-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The estimated count for chess forks has been revised upward to approximately 3 trillion, based on an assumption of at least 3 forks per game across ~1 trillion total chess games played.
Update 2026-03-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Chess tablebases contain approximately 4 × 10^14 positions. Assuming ~1% involve forks (consistent with Grandmaster game rates), this yields ~4 × 10^12 additional forks. Combined with the previously estimated ~3 trillion chess forks, the running total for forks is now approximately 7 trillion.
Update 2026-04-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Fruit fly spoons count, estimated at ~10^19 (one per gene instance)
DNA replication forks now count estimated at ~10^33 (100 per cell × ~10^31 cells)
Update 2026-04-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): DNA replication forks and fruit fly spoons do not count (reversing the earlier update that added them).
Update 2026-04-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is reconsidering whether to exclude microscopic things, and has linked a poll for traders to vote on. The resolution criteria regarding microscopic items may change based on poll results and trader arguments.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ254 | |
| 2 | Ṁ152 | |
| 3 | Ṁ126 | |
| 4 | Ṁ112 | |
| 5 | Ṁ106 |
@traders Forks is currently winning, but you can change that! There is ~M1.8k to be won if you get spoons' numbers above 7 trillion.
https://manifold.markets/100Anonymous/should-dna-replication-forks-argini-NRsE6Izp9l Promoting this poll again to incentivise more votes.
https://manifold.markets/100Anonymous/should-dna-replication-forks-argini-NRsE6Izp9l
Poll on arginine forks, fruit fly spoons, and DNA replication forks is live now! Vote if you have not invested in the market or have good reasoning.
Also, spoon team supporters do note that GitHub forks count as forks, so it isn't over for team forks yet.
@CalamityDaoist density of 5 per m², 360 trillion m² in the ocean floor, total 1.8 x 10 to the 15, which is not enough to beat DNA replication forks.
@traders I'm withdrawing the liquidity, as there's only a few hours left, and I don't want to waste liquidity on traders simply boosting this to 99% (or 1% if a winning argument for spoons somehow manifests).
https://manifold.markets/100Anonymous/do-microscopic-things-count-in-my-f please vote on this poll. Depending on this, I will decide whether to further extend the market or just finish the resolution.
@100Anonymous abstaining from voting because I reject polling for something agreed upon by market creator prior
@Bandors true, but do you have any good argument as to why we should exclude microscopic things? Most people have not liked the fact that they were excluded and basically removed the fun of this market.
@Bandors if you have a good argument, then please tell me. I will cancel the poll. I cannot exclude every other trader on this market because of what I agreed initially. In my Chairs vs Tables market, the Cyclohexane Chair Formation Decision changed multiple times. I think you should expect the same with this market.
@100Anonymous I just don't like reopening things hard agreed on by you prior.
"I cannot exclude every other trader on this market because of what I agreed initially."
you can and you should
@Bandors Ok, fine. Even if I excluded every other trader, what about the cyclohexane chair formation case? I had decided twice and then got convinced and re-made my decisions, so wouldn't it be the same for this?
@Bandors oh, and by cyclohexane chair formation, I mean in the previous version of this market last year. It's a continuation of that chain, and there are the same rules.
@100Anonymous I wasn't following that market's comments closely, but I'd assume you didn't do a set rule agreeance like we did here. anyway I am mostly debating here for the lolz I have minimal mana invested, not trying to be annoying, I just like being pedantic in spaces where being pedantic is more acceptable
@Bandors it's my bad for not clarifying that decisions can change if someone convinces me. I'm sorry about that. If you are really pedantic, I can try resolving to a percentage (Although I am not sure how that would work)
@100Anonymous Yeah 100%, a simple "all rules are subject to change" would have been fine. Nah I'll stick to being in-market pedantic and not meta pedantic
@Bandors would you be fine if I changed this but specifically excluded all the things that I mentioned in the poll? That way, new microscopic things can appear, but the old ones shouldn't impact the market.
@100Anonymous haven't you already agreed below to include microscopic things? There was a comment 10 days ago where you added these to the count. Just resolve the market already.
EDIT: oh, that comment was itself a reversal of a previous position but instead of editing that comment you commented further below. I don't know how @traders are supposed to follow this market and tbh I regret getting involved in it.
@MattP Did you not see the replies below? I initially said it and then bandors disagreed. There was a whole conversation there. Anyway, I'll resolve the market in 12 hours. In any case, microscopic things do count, and DNA forks and fruit fly spoons have been added to the count. Edit. My voice translator broke.
@traders Should I extend the close date of this market? Seems like this market has rebounded, but there is not enough time for a continuation of the debate. Currently, I have extended it to April 25th, but if anyone has any problems, please reply below.
@100Anonymous I'd say just resolve it unless there's a compelling reason to extend it. There will always be more things to argue about.
@MattP well, the compelling reason is that the debate has just rebounded, but there is not enough time to finish it, so I'm extending it to April 25th temporarily. Once this new rebound ends (noticed by the lack of new traders), I will probably close and resolve the market.
@MattP actually, I was supposed to give a ruling on DNA replication forks, arginine forks, and fruit fly spoons a week earlier, but I couldn't do it in time. So the activity on this market stopped, and so I am accounting for the delay by adjusting the close date.