The second one was very clear and to the point. Parsing it was rewarded with instant understanding and I enjoyed the word choice. The first one was just annoying; I could tell it was just listing a bunch of pointless analogies to try to make its point sound more grandiose so I immediately started skimming, and didn't come away feeling like it meant much other than "we all die in the end". The second one made an actual point and was the one that made me want to read it. The first one was the chore for me.

The first communicated a feeling. A brief flutter in the soul of a picture of recognition, painted for your mind's eye with care by the author.

The second transcribed considerable information bandwidth through intentionally structured word choice for maximal density.

Yeah. The first one was like a minimalist painting, the second like a software specification.

I'm pretty sure that the general public does not want to read software specifications.

I can't see how you could apply "minimalist" to that excerpt. It's maximalist, hammering the same point over and over and over when one or two examples with a little more worldbuilding per example would have done better if they were going for "evocative".

If I had to pin a subjective experience to reading it, it would be that of being stuck in a car as a teenager with a parent who's ranting about whatever set them off that day and won't move on from repeating their grievance in different words when you got the point five minutes ago. In contrast, the second feels like having an enjoyable and productive level-headed conversation with someone who respects you and trusts you to understand the words.

That was exactly my experience, and I found it to be a little bit depressing.