The renamed (Metaculus → Mantic) Monday, elevated above a bare roundup by a real prediction-accountability core: Scott grades his own April-2020 COVID predictions against Zvi and Bucky using a log-scoring rule (guessing 50-50 = 0), reports that he and Bucky scored NEGATIVE (worse than max-uncertainty) driven by overconfident wrong calls (election-called-in-a-day, lockdowns-end-by-November), and mines it for calibration self-knowledge — he did best on biological questions (medical training) and worst on personal-life ones, some of which Zvi caught as mutually inconsistent. A full 20-question appendix with adjudication follows, plus assorted links (Hypermind, Vitalik's Augur win, third-party-2024 and Bitcoin-vs-market Metaculus questions). More standalone reasoning than the typical Monday.

Quality 65 · Strong. Strong-floor (65, top of the forecasting-Monday band). The self-graded calibration exercise + the honest 'we did worse than chance' analysis give it genuine standalone value above the bare roundups (~62), but it remains a topical prediction-scoring post, not a major essay.

Claude’s paradigm shift 44 · Moderate. Moderate (44). Public, quantified self-scoring against peers is a nice epistemic-virtue demonstration but not a novel frame.

Real-world impact 1 · Negligible. 1 — a forecasting roundup; negligible real-world effect.

Mantic Monday: Judging April COVID Predictions