You may be cherry-picking pieces from your compiler output, but all up I think you’re probably choosing the wrong parts, and even caring about the wrong thing.

rustc’s (default) “human” error format is going to be very messy for screen readers to follow, because it has a lot of visual alignment and decoration. You’re going to have to leap through hoops to make it decent for accessibility tools, whereas that C++ compiler’s output might not be quite so bad in some ways. (To clarify: I expect that both tools/formats are bad for blind users, in different ways. For sighted users, I don’t think there’s much of a contest—but the distinction is in the diagnoses more than their presentation, so this difference is about everyone, not blind people.)

But I think blind people probably genuinely shouldn’t be caring much about the error messages as they appear in a terminal these days, because this span formatting is always going to be lousy without very fancy tooling to sanely contextualise it, and guess what? There kinda is such tooling already: IDEs (and with the advent of LSP, it’s even broadly cross-language). Use something like rust-analyzer with your Vim + coc.nvim (what I use) or VS Code (the most popular choice) or whatever, and you can jump between error locations easily and have it all presented with your code, rather than separately. That way, the only accessibility support required is in the IDE, and that you have a language server (which people will want anyway ’cos they’re handy).

(Since I mentioned Rust’s error formats, relevant reading: `rustc --error-format=…` <https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/command-line-arguments.html#...>, and `cargo build --message-format=…` <https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/commands/cargo-build.html#op...>. My guess is that blind people would probably be better served by the “short” error format, or by tooling that consumes the “json” error format… like rust-analyzer.)

Ha, joke's on them! We purposely used our cell phones during our ceremony to update our relationship status on Facebook, because that was a thing at the time.

The woman and child were clearly put there for ceremonial purposes.

Imagine that, 150 years ago or whenever, some clever soul had decided to make a written test to measure niceness, and called the test score Niceness Quotient. And the first version sucked, but some other folks iterated on it and over time the test was improved until it correlated pretty well to the sorts of things you would think that niceness would correlate to. 150 years of progress later, we'd have a whole field of Niceometry and researchers trying to isolate sub-areas like charity, friendliness, etc, and trying to suss out an underlying factor of general amiability, and the whole thing would be so well embedded in to the culture that almost no one remembers that "nice" is just a regular word with no objective or scientific definition, and that we measure it with a written test not because that's a good way to measure niceness but because we can't find a better way.

If you thought ads were already blended in with the rest of the content in a sketchy way, wait for AI responses with implicit ads (no indication) optimized towards conversion :)

Or maybe some response that doesn't contain an ad link but nudges you subconsciously to take desired action