How so? Predictions of black swan disasters are only useful if the prediction leads to investment into preventative measures, right?
Even though, they were 200, the fact that one of them was identified correctly, saved human civilization as a whole.
The point being, 1 in 200 is not a bad success ratio per se
To put it another way: if you're making arbitrary predictions without explanations, then you increase the likelihood of a prediction coming true by increasing the number of predictions you make. But clearly we shouldn't value predictors simply based on the number of predictions they make.