The problems described here notwithstanding, it's not exactly what I meant when I mentioned _fundamental_ flaws. I was referring to the decision to follow the paradigm where to share an MS Word or Excel document, the recipient will need to acquire and install a copy of Microsoft Office (or research acceptable third-party compatible viewer programs—an exercise even more fraught than installing Office proper).

Another commenter went on to write a lengthy comment (likening it to an IDE, however, which is an analogy that doesn't really work, and where the Excel comparison is really most apt): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45815212>

> We're literally asking users today 'to view this notebook install Jupyter/Marimo/whatever and open from there' when the Notebook is designed to create the publication […] In general the output i demonstrate above should be the minimum bar [for what a notebook is]

Any desktop preparation pipeline for ostensibly sharing research that doesn't leverage the ubiquity of the World Wide Wruntime needing no installation (either that, or able to output self-contained, source-carrying executables supporting decompilation that you're expected to run like a video game rather than open like a PDF—all of which is fraught with other obvious problems) is not really solving the research-sharing problem. Jupyter just repeats what has always plagued the Python world and was never solved despite the existence of e.g. Anaconda.