However since you've asked so nicely here you go: everybody’s code looking different is because all humans are different. It's what makes us human. I am very serious about my craftsmanship, and I bring my "humanity" to it: sometimes I include a cultural reference (as in the example above), or an internal joke in the name of a (very long) variable, or vent my frustration in a comment.
My first ten years of writing Python were uneventful; nobody commented about my style and I never commented about others'. With the advent of grammar nazi bots, everyone is supposed to now please them by writing completely bland code, which in my opinion degrades me from a craftsman to a code-monkey. This is dehumanising, in a certain sense.
I care how the food tastes, not that the chef has a really cool Japanese knife and is really fast at cutting onions.
Now imagine a chef who has a nice little restaurant but is now being sent a couple of "quality assurance" guys from McDonald's who tell him that his choice of potato variety for chips does not exactly conform to the "standards" defined at the mothership.
Software shouldn't be bespoke and "artisan".
The bigger problem is this: you want me to be a cog wheel, but I want to be an artist.
And honestly, this is such a weird hill to die on. Lint rules when automated are basically pure win in most scenarios, and for your example, just exclude the rule for this block.
Well, that's the ball game then. This isn't the industry to be an artist in, especially post-AI.
We want maintainable code we can quickly onboard in, and be able to modify and extend. Your artistry is getting in the way of other people getting stuff done.
That's not true, and if anything in software having consistent software delivery makes it more likely to achieve Michelin-graded level of quality, not less.
I've worked on great codebases that would produce thousands of linter errors (lowball estimation), and on shitty codebases that were 100% compliant.