Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this article, but I always put linefeeds where they should logically be. If people would like to view it in a certain way, it's always easy to put it through a text-processing program, which will do a much better job on semantically separated content rather that that which has had formatting hard-coded into it.
(Incidentally, this is also why I use tabs for indentation, since it's a lot easier for tooling to relayout. But I'm not trying to start the holy war here.)
One way to look at the article is not everyone realizes that there isn't anything stopping people in some whitespace ignoring places like Markdown (or HTML or LaTeX etc) from writing prose more like poetry with linefeeds at clause level and other visually interesting places rather than just at paragraph level or at some technically simple compromise like 72-character word wrapping.
Which is sort of the reverse inference from the one you are presuming. ("I want to format this text, so I'll use tools" versus more in this case "I'm using tools to format this text anyway, maybe I'll flow it like I want in its raw source form to be what looks interesting / dynamic / poetic.")
Perhaps the point your missing is that "your version-control system will love semantic linefeeds". You can have your editor reformat your text for viewing any way you like but adding a word at the beginning of a long paragraph can lead to a big diff in line-based version control. While there are other approaches to mitigation, semantic linefeeds are simple and straightforward.
(Incidentally, this is also why I use tabs for indentation, since it's a lot easier for tooling to relayout. But I'm not trying to start the holy war here.)