The typeset article is what you'd see if you download the .pdf from, e.g., Nature. 
.
It's the manuscript with all the stuff that distinguishes an article from one journal to another (where is the abstract, what font type, is there a divider between some sections, etc.). Articles that have not been typeset yet can be seen from Arxiv, for example this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04391
There are several benefits, but compared to WordPress, I guess the biggest one is outreach: no one will actually see an article if it's published by a young researcher that hasn't made a name for themselves yet. It will also not be catalogued and will therefore be more difficult to find when searching for articles.
Also, calling researchers "whipped" is a bit dismissive to the huge inertia there is in the realm of scientific publication. The scientific journal of Nature was founded in 1869, but general open-access publishing has only really taken off in the last decade or so.
Plenty. If you scroll down, there's tens of research articles linked. You just have to click on the circles for most of the articles :-)
Here's an excerpt from the bottom of the article':
The most conclusive long-term study on sleep training to date is a 2012 randomized controlled trial on 326 infants, which found no difference on any measure—negative or positive—between children who were sleep trained and those who weren’t after a 5 year follow up. The study includes measurements of sleep patterns, behavior, cortisol levels, and, importantly, attachment.
Could you explain a bit more about why it's insane to have it as a docked volume instead of a mount point on the host? I'm not too well-versed with docker (or maybe hosting in general)
Edit: typo
Interesting that they have such a greedy/stupid bot
I would say no. Just as it's not legitimate for any other business to break the law even if that means they're not going to be profitable
Is it possible for you to somehow quantify traffic originating from AdNauseum? If so, how?
Seeing the edit, yes, but that is also wrong. As the first line of the link says, radiation therapy uses ionizing radiation and not microwaves
It is possible to use microwaves for treating cancer (see https://www.bmc.org/content/microwave-ablation), but the two aforementioned methods do not use them (with the caveat that both "chemotherapy" and "radiation therapy" are very broad categories)
But that study was done on people aged 65+ for 11 weeks? I mean, sure, they didn't measure any significant changes to the brain, but that doesn't preclude changes forever. 11 weeks is not long to practice a language
From the method section of the paper:
Materials and Property Characterization. From a popular US chain store, two brands of baby food containers made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch with- out material information on the label were purchased. The selection of polypropylene containers was based on its widespread use in baby food packaging. These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby food packaging. The food containers and the food pouch were analyzed for their semicrystalline structure and thermal stability by DSC using a Q200 differential scanning calorimeter (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE). Briefly, a small sample weighing between 3 and 8 mg was taken from each container or pouch, placed in a DSC aluminum pan/lid assem- bly, and crimped with a press. The samples were heated and cooled at a rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere, resulting in calori- metric curves that indicate the heat transfer to and from the polymer sample during the thermal cycle, which was used to monitor phase transitions. H u s s a i n e t a l . i n E n v i r o n . S c i . T e c h n o l . 5 7 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 5 Transmission wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) of the reusable food pouch was performed at the 12-ID-B beamline at the Advanced Pho- ton Source (Argonne National Laboratory), using incident X-rays with energy 13.30 keV and a Pilatus 300k 2D detector mounted 0.4 m from the sample. WAXD patterns of the two plastic containers were acquired in reflection geometry with a Bruker-AXS D8 Discover equipped with a Cu Kα lab source (λ = 1.5406 A) and a Vantec 500 area detector. In all cases, the acquired 2D patterns were radially averaged to produce 1D intensity (I) vs scattering vector (q) plots
No, that's not what I said. You're right that journals, to some extent, also lends credibility to the publication, but it's not the source of credibility. What I said was that an article published in Nature will have many more views than an article published on a random WordPress blog.
Again, saying that researchers "agree to have it that way" ignores the structural difficulty of changing the system by the individual. The ones who benefit the most from changing the system are also the ones most dependent on external funding - that is, young researchers. Publishing in low-impact journals (ones that has a small outreach such as most open-access journals) makes it much harder to apply for funding