Maybe it's out-of-scope but the article seems to ignore a question: what benefits are there to making writing "less readable" (or at least to write without prio

Maybe it's out-of-scope but the article seems to ignore a question: what benefits are there to making writing "less readable" (or at least to write without prioritising readability). The fact that this article has been written twice (and defaults to the "less readable" version) implies there may be some reasons. Perhaps the only reason this was done here is to provide more contrasting examples? Ultimately, I think the rules of readability here are mostly well-known (by writers) - Orwell famously codified similar rules in Politics & The English Language. But I think writers choose to ignore them for certain reasons & that seems worth exploring.