I think this is pretty cool. I've been thinking about this "tree" in context of presentations which are structure + content/facts + layout/visualization. Basic

I think this is pretty cool. I've been thinking about this "tree" in context of presentations which are structure + content/facts + layout/visualization. Basically all presentation content is just a big tree/hierarchy of facts (text and numbers) and some applied layout. Many of the problems are similar: - you want to look at the problem on different levels "high level" story line, low level drilling into section 4.3.2, seamless zoom - you'd want to have different representations of the same information. During problem solving the information you are collecting is constantly growing and it's a back and forth between adding data, shaping it differently (lists become tables etc.) - easy entity/renaming, search and replace for facts + audit trails "where does the number come from" etc. - CSS / re-styling (why does it matter if important words are blue or red, that should just be a CSS theme you switch out) - there also exists "structs" which are structured entities like say "these are the 40 offices" the client has, and we want to represent them in various forms - ... I wonder if notion could be turned into a modern problem solving / result presentation maker. It's very flexible in surfacing the same content in different formats. More related to software development and their demo: Is any additional information in the tree, that is not /can not be in the text rendering. I get that the text rendering can be "loss-y" meaning that if it's badly rendered, information can be lost / the text has errors. But if you have the information, and you render it into a certain text representation that is error free. Then the program should also be able to parse it back into a tree? What are the situations were storing it in "tree form" are actually superior? Isn't the "tree" just a more compressed, less error prone and stricter text?