The rule of parenthesis (that they only ever add context) implies that your example sentence's core message is;

"One guy write in style"

GP is hitting against limit of expressiveness of sequential text. Stacked parentheses work when the flattened sentence still reads correctly, but in this case, GP has a graph-like thought, in that:

  in (most of the times <this> (or deeper)) style

is supposed to represent a graph, where "most of the times" and "or deeper" both descend from "this", and "or deeper" also descends from "most of the times". A DAG like that can't in general be flattened without back references (which would be meta-elements in the text, something natural writing generally doesn't do) or repetition, and the latter will lead to non-grammatical sentences, especially as you trim the DAG down to reduce detail.

Also: while I'm not the guy GP references, I am a guy that does that too - or rather did, at some point in the past, until I realized there's like 5 people in my life who could understand this without an issue, even less who'd indulge me or enjoy communicating this way. So over time, I got back to writing like a normal person[0]; I guess conformity is just less mentally taxing.

--

[0] - Mostly - I still use semicolons and single-depth parentheses a lot, and on HN, also footnotes.

I used to do it a lot myself since it's closer to the thought. But I'm also dyslectic. Getting lost at which stack-depth I'm at while reading made me respect short and to-the-point writing.

Very easy to lose focus even without dyslexia. I found out that you have to “glide” through these stacks rather than trying to reconstruct the tree, because its structure often mirrors the commenter’s stream of thought and its tempo is either somewhat similar to yours or acts as a #clk.

That’s the non-standard part. His parentheses may add context and may serve as proper child nodes or just float there linking to the most semantically relevant parts.

Style is!