This is actually a decent paper; the authors had an idea, wasted a ton of effort on it, and didn't want anybody else to spend time exploring a dead end. Remember, even negative results are important.

In the spirit of your comment, perhaps it would be better to say 'spent', rather than 'wasted'? As you are saying, this is an important distinction.

Ah, true. Unfortunately, can't fix it now.

I wonder if there's a scientific paper equivalent to Betteridge's Law of Headlines:

If a headline ends with a question mark, then the answer is "no".

Right to the point, just as every loves it.

Probably.

Yes.

Real question: will reviewers take such papers seriously, or will they be overly-impressed by the trappings of "real" papers (which include vocabulary as a relatively minor point), thus giving the wrong incentives to authors?