but as long as you are telling the compiler through a first class API, it's not brittle because there compiler knows the meaning and intent of the statement, and therefore can avoid optimizing it in invalid ways.
A randomly selected hamburger, frankfurter, or wiener, probably isn't made in Hamburg, Frankfurt, or Vienna.
And sometimes it can get even weirder: Stilton cheese is named after where it was historically sold, but it's made elsewhere and you're not allowed to call a cheese "stilton" if you actually make it in Stilton. (Edit: I originally got Stilton and Cheddar mixed up).
As I'm a British national, I don't know if this is the full reason, or if this is in combination with the natural human tendency to care more about nearby things and that the Atlantic is so big that all of the USA is closer to one of the places called "Champagne" within the USA than to the original in France.
There is a kind of onion called a "Vidalia onion," grown in the town of Vidalia, Georgia. They're a sweeter onion, which is unusual, which is why it grew into a brand.
However, because of this, a lot of people's first exposure with a sweet onion is a Vidalia. But not all sweet onions are Vidalia onions. Yet sometimes people still use "Vidalia" to mean "sweet onion" in a generic sense.
I suspect it's very similar, honestly: I don't think your average American knows that Champagne is a place. Their only exposure to the word is via that style of wine. And so they associate it with the style rather than the brand/region.
(Vidalia onions are also protected legally in the same way that Champagne is; a lot of people in this thread saying that that's just some silly French thing don't realize how common this is. In the onions' case, this has been true since 1989.)
Cheddar isn't a Protected Designation. So, if you want to make Cheddar in Swansea? No problem. Edinburgh? No problem. Dublin? Pretoria? Atlanta? Christchurch? All fine.
"West Country Farmhouse Cheddar" is protected, but that's quite a mouthful so few people care, and that still only requires you made it in roughly the correct way (you need to use local milk) and in roughly the correct part of the UK (maybe an hour or two drive from Cheddar).
Perspective: live in the USA, from Australia (where the “locale” mentality is the same as USA), lived for years in France. So I understand both sides.
The simple explanation is that nobody in the US really cares about the point of origin — even wine labels are considered more a brand than a location. There is no sense that « terroir » might have any consequence.
Sometimes you encounter food labeled with the state where it was grown or produced — that’s mainly a “buy local” claim, nothing more.
It’s mostly genericized at this point. You can get a Philly cheesesteak all over the US, for example. Maybe it’s not as authentic as something from Pennsylvania but being pedantic about it is a little snobby.
Philly cheesesteak has never been about Philly grown meat and Philly grown cheese though. French also won't be fighting to have "Paris-Brest" region protected for instance.
Champagne is not about a recipe or concept, the grapes are grown and made to wine in the actual place.
In actual language usage, in the US, many people use champagne to mean any white sparkling wine (possibly any sparkling wine).
In the southern US 'coke' can be used to mean soda. Any soda. Even Pepsi. It doesn't matter that Coca-Cola has the trademark for Coke or that a Pepsi isn't a Coke.
> In the southern US 'coke' can be used to mean soda. Any soda. Even Pepsi. It doesn't matter that Coca-Cola has the trademark for Coke or that a Pepsi isn't a Coke.
Not just soda. My parents moved to Texas, I visited a bit, and had people ask me if this Coke thing was true. I had no idea... we generally didn't eat out, so I didn't hear what the locals did.
When I was back for Christmas, we were at a restaurant, and I heard the waiter as the table beside ours asking about drinks, so I listened...
Customer: "Can I get a Coke?"
Waiter: "What kind of Coke?"
(as this point I'm thinking they want clarity on Regular, Diet, Cherry, etc...)
Customer: "A lemonade".
That was just weird to me. A Coke is literally ANY drink in Texas.
I agree people should be allowed to colloquially call it whatever they want. Nobody will be there to stop parents from call their kids' PS5 a nintendo or calling mega blocks legos.
The rules are different for official product names though. I think "sparking wine" is explicit enough for any of these drinks to not have to strip the Champagne region of its name.
>The rules are different for official product names though.
Your argument about "official product names" seems inconsistently applied.
In your first paragraph, Nintendo® and Lego® are registered trademarks with the government and therefore, "official product names":
>I agree people should be allowed to colloquially call it whatever they want. Nobody will be there to stop parents from call their kids' PS5 a nintendo or calling mega blocks legos.
If people can colloquially re-use "Nintendo" to label any game console from Sony/Microsoft/Sega, why is colloquially using "champagne" to describe sparkling wine that's not from France a different scenario?
EDIT to reply: >The point makeitdouble is making is that it’s fine for people to use the term generically, but products shouldn’t use the name generically.[...], but Sony can’t call their next console a “Nintendo”.
The isolated subthread with grandparents (saagarjha, Brybry) that makeitdouble and you are replying in is talking about language usage and not corporations' product branding:
Brybry is actually already agreeing with your Sony example and that comment gets downvoted? Both saagarjha and Brybry have stated correct facts about how language is used in the wild so what exactly are people downvoting? I'm truly confused.
Again, the context of the subthread is language usage and not about breaking France & EU legal rules around "Champagne".
The point makeitdouble is making is that it’s fine for people to use the term generically, but products shouldn’t use the name generically. So a parent might call a PS5 a “Nintendo”, but Sony can’t call their next console a “Nintendo”. The same applies to champagne. People can call sparkling white wine “champagne”, but companies producing sparkling white wine should be able to call their products “champagne” unless it is actually from Champagne.
We generally mock wine-snobbery. There’s some element of stereotyping French things as pretentious. But mostly it is because that’s the brand of wine that is known by everybody to be fancy. (Hey, stereotyping is bad, but on the other hand we don’t mistake any British food for fancy, so at least there’s some begrudging respect built into the stereotype).
So really, congrats to Champagne for making a brand so well known that Wayne’s World can make fun of it and be sure that basically the whole audience will get the joke. I mean that sincerely.
You have to know a little bit about wine to know about Napa Valley. I think “it’s from NaPa Valllleeyyy” in a sort of silly voice is something that somebody might say. It just doesn’t have the reach.
I would think of this as not really making fun of Champagne. We’re making fun of being the kind of person that cares about Champagne.
The British food thing is I think less about respect or fanciness and more familiarity. American staples tend to have similar ratios of various nutrient groups, often without even as much as a substitute. American "home-style" cooking is almost identical in a lot of respects, if we ignore regional variations in both countries.
So I think its less that we think French cuisine is fancy or British food is bad, and more that we don't even really think about British food because a British Christmas dinner is basically the same as an American one (and I've got no clue what a French person would eat for Christmas dinner, so it is exotic and expensive sounding in that respect).
Of course all of this mostly applies to everyone in any anglosphere country. I don't think an Australian would be any more uncomfortable eating a home cooked American meal than an American would be eating a British one.
I think the issue with Champagne is that in the USA we used the word as a generic term for sparkling wine for MANY decades before it became a Designated Appellation. Bottles were sold here using the word champagne only to indicate it was sparkling wine.
In English, champagne isn't wine from a specific location, it's a specific type of wine. People aren't going to call red wine grown from the place champagne.
It's like saying you can't call them brazil nuts unless they were grown in Brazil.
> People aren't going to call red wine grown from the place champagne.
Correct, because red wines produced in Champagne are called something else.
To get to your point though, red wines from Bourgogne are most certainly referred to as "burgundy" and depending on whom you ask, it's always pinot noir (but some will argue Gamay is included). I've noticed that many chefs refer to any good Pinot as a burgundy when dunking it in their stews, and while that's probably okay most of the time when cooking, that generalization is discarding more than just a little nuance for drinkin' wine. A pinot noir grape grown in Oregon can be vastly different than one from France and I will usual skip on the former.
> It's like saying you can't call them brazil nuts unless they were grown in Brazil.
You're attempting to compare an entire culture, craft, and industry of wine to nuts that fall off trees. With things like wine, cheese, and cured meats, there are certainly regional characteristics and traditional techniques that make a product distinct. This designation is to protect consumers and businesses and hurts no one except imposters?
Since that's all too high brow, another more pertinent example may be how everyone from Kentucky knows the limestone in the water makes its whiskey the best in the would. While the US has some laws defining qualities of whiskey, it unfortunately doesn't lay down rules on "terroir". Corn mash isn't quite as expressive as wine grapes, so I can understand the skepticism but many folks swear that the old barns where bourbon whiskey is aged add their own touch.... not so sure about that one.
And this where your ununderstanding starts. It is a place name for you. For literally billions of people it's some word describing a type alc. drink first.
It's quite common in the EU. Names such as cognac, port, and parmesan are protected, and you can only use them for products made using the traditional process in the traditional region.
Not everyone wants to work on a distributed team. I happen to and it works for me, but I have been much happier in the past when my entire team was colocated in the same office. There is no right or wrong choice here, simply different choices made for different teams/companies. Find the one that works for you and ignore the rest.
Apple have compiler engineers who aren't at that site. Maybe they're currently only hiring for that one area, more likely it's divergence between what HR wrote down and reality.
Because that's Apple. Just like how they forces everyone to come in office three days a week. Not every company does that -- some big companies are still quite flexible with full remote work. But this is Apple.
It's confusing that folks are upset about this. If it doesn't work for you, don't work for Apple. It's like complaining about the neighbor who bakes great apple pies also happens to not let their children play video games. The children may be upset by why would you be?
> It's confusing that folks are upset about this. If it doesn't work for you, don't work for Apple.
While you are indeed free not to work for Apple (that is what I do!), policies in FAANG companies have significant influence on smaller companies who tend to cargo cult them without much thinking. That is how we end up with leetcode-style interviews, now I'm afraid we all might end up back in office, only even worse one than before where you don't even have assigned table in the open-space.
> At the moment, graphics offload will only work with Wayland on Linux. There is some hope that we may be able to implement similar things on MacOS, but for now, this is Wayland-only. It also depends on the content being in dmabufs.
When I wrote the macOS backend and GL renderer I made them use IOSurface already. So it's really a matter of setting up CALayer automatically the same way that we do it on Linux.
I don't really have time for that though, I only wrote the macOS port because I had some extra holiday hacking time.
On Windows and DirectX, you have the concept of Shared Handles, which are essentially handles you can pass between process boundaries. It also comes with a mutex mechanism to signal who is using the resource at the moment. Fun fact - Windows at the kernel level works with the concept of 'objects', which can be file handles, window handles, threads, mutexes, or in this case, textures, which are reference counted. Sharing a particular texture is just exposing the handle to multiple processes.
> At the moment, graphics offload will only work with Wayland on Linux. There is some hope that we may be able to implement similar things on MacOS, but for now, this is Wayland-only. It also depends on the content being in dmabufs.
Except this has been happening for quite a while, hence why a couple of cross platform projects have migrated from Gtk to Qt, including Subsurface, a bit ironically, given the relationship of the project to Linus.
The Subsurface developer did that 10 years ago and it only was because he personally preferred Qt. Take a step back for a moment and consider that in 10 years that's the only major example that anyone ever brings out. GTK is still very welcoming for contributions to maintain the GDK backends. Developers like that have to actually step up and do it and have patience, instead of outright quitting and running off to Qt which has a whole company to maintain those ports.
What's a Tolkit? And why two of them? I thought GTK was the Toolkit, GIMP was the Image Manipulation Program, and Gnome was the desktop Network Object Model Environment. Am I a revisionist here? (I certainly have my reservations about them!)
Exactly? If you're still holding out for GTK to be a non-Linux toolkit in 2023 then you're either an incredibly misguided contributor and/or ignorant of the history behind the toolkit. The old GTK does not exist anymore, you either use GNOME's stack or you don't.
GNOME co-opted and sabotaged GTK for anyone that’s not GNOME. GTK used to be capable of being fairly OS-neutral, and was certainly quite neutral within Linux and so became the widget toolkit of choice for diverse desktop environments and worked well thus; but over time GNOME has taken it over completely, and the desires of other desktop environments are utterly ignored. The GNOME Foundation has become a very, very bad custodian for GTK.
As you say, the old GTK is dead. GNOME murdered it. I mourn it.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you've said. Still though, I use GTK because it works and think the pushback against it is silly. GTK was never destined to be the cross-platform native framework. If that was attainable, people would have forked GTK 2 (for what?) or GTK 3 (too quirky). Now we're here, and the only stakeholders on the project is the enormously opinionated GNOME team.
They've made a whole lot of objective and subjective missteps in the past, but I don't think it's fair to characterize them as an evil party here. They did the work, they reap the rewards, and they take the flak for the myriad of different ways the project could/should have gone.
The problem with the GIMP team is not that they're enormously opinionated, but that they're WRONGLY opinionated.
It's not that they're the evil party, it's just that they should stop feeling so sorry for themselves that so few people want to use their image editor because of its terrible user interface caused by the fact that they refuse to listen to their users, and it has a terribly offensive name that they refuse to change.
At least they still have a fanatical following of MAGA incel edgelords and ESR sycophants who love it BECAUSE it has an offensive name, so they still have that hard core fanbase to appeal to.
They're as self-sabotaging as RMS himself, and they don't deserve to play the victim or to have a pity party, especially when they try to throw it for themselves.
GIMP has about 3-4 part-time developers and no designers. They have no resources to redesign the user interface even though it's been wanted for a long time. It's taken them an extremely long time just to get GIMP 3 out the door and that's just a port without any major UI changes. But I agree otherwise, the horrible name is completely on them.
No, that's an outlandish conspiracy theory and completely ahistorical. GTK was always developed on Linux first, and before it was used by GNOME it had a lot of GIMP-specific functionality that didn't extend well to other apps. Want to know why? Because GIMP and GNOME developers were the only ones contributing. Those "diverse desktop environments" almost always took from GNOME and contributed very little back. That's fine to do it but they need to accept that they don't call the shots when they do that. They don't get to pull their funding and then complain someone else is being a bad custodian, it doesn't work like that.
> Those "diverse desktop environments" almost always took from GNOME and contributed very little back.
Now that's an ahistorical conspiracy theory. Those diverse desktop environments contributed hugely to GTK, GNOME just didn't use their work or consider it helpful unless it directly related to their desktop... and of course none of that work will relate to their desktop. Nobody is going to fully "kiss the ring" unless they get something out of it, and even back in the GTK3 days it was plainly clear that GNOME didn't care about you if you didn't care about GNOME.
Now, GNOME's "coup" or "killing" of GTK is completely fine by Open Source standards. Even encouraged. I don't stand against the concepts of what they're doing, but they could have done a lot better than fighting third-parties tooth-and-nail. GNOME should be a proud project that leads the GNU movement, and instead it was reduced to a bunch of squabbling supremacists that made their userbase an adversary. I say all that as someone who quite likes modern GTK and writes apps in it.
No? Where exactly do you think I've theorized about the existence of a conspiracy? Because I've actually said the exact opposite: there isn't a conspiracy and no one is cooperating at all. There's no evil group of developers secretly planning to sabotage everything. It's just the usual bad communication and planning that happens with a distributed team.
>Those diverse desktop environments contributed hugely to GTK, GNOME just didn't use their work
Can you name what any of these contributions were? Because I've never seen them. I've seen contributions here and there, lots of minor bug fixes, but nothing major.
>Nobody is going to fully "kiss the ring" unless they get something out of it
Avoid this rhetoric please. These open source projects are a volunteer collaboration. No one's kissing any rings or trying to get something out of the maintainers, other than the usual: everyone helps each other write and maintain the code.
>but they could have done a lot better than fighting third-parties tooth-and-nail. GNOME should be a proud project that leads the GNU movement
I really don't know what you're talking about here, but disagreeing about technical things isn't "fighting tooth-and-nail". That's a normal part of any project.
Personally I don't think anyone should care about leading the GNU movement, that's been plagued by petty infighting and drama since the very beginning.
Dude, I know. I've been implementing user interface toolkits since the early 80's, but I've still never heard of a "Tolkit", which you mentioned twice, so I asked you what it was -- are you making a silly pun like "Tollkit" for "Toolkit" or "Lamework" for "Framework" or "Bloatif" for "Motif" and I'm missing it? No hits on urban dictionary, even. And also you still haven't explained whether I'm a revisionist or not.
Just like you, I love to write articles about user interface stuff all the time, too. Just in the past week:
My enthusiastic but balanced response to somebody who EMPHATICALLY DEMANDED PIE MENUS ONLY for GIMP, and who loves pie fly, but pushed my button by defending the name GIMP by insisting that instead of the GIMP project simply and finally conceding its name is offensive, that our entire society adapt by globally re-signifying a widely known offensive hurtful word (so I suggested he first go try re-signifying the n-word first, and see how that went):
(While I would give more weight to the claim that the name GIMP is actually all about re-signifying an offensive term if it came from a qualified and empathic and wheelchair using interface designer like Haraldur Ingi Þorleifsson, I doubt that’s actually the real reason, just like it’s not white people’s job to re-signify the n-word by saying it all the time...)
Meet the man who is making Iceland wheelchair accessible one ramp at a time:
The article about redesigning GIMP we were discussing credited Blender with being the first to show what mouse buttons do what at the bottom of the screen, which actually the Lisp Machine deserves credit for, as far as I know:
I made a joke about how telling GIMP developers to make it more like Photoshop was like telling RMS to develop Open Software for Linux, instead of Free Software for GNU/Linux, and somebody took the bait so I flamed about the GIMP developer’s lack of listening skills:
Discussion about HTML Web Components, in which I confess my secret affair with XML, XSLT, obsolete proprietary Microsoft technologies, and Punkemon pie menus:
Deep interesting discussion about Blender 4.0 release notes, focusing on its historic development and its developer’s humility and openness to its users’ suggestions, in which I commented on its excellent Python integration.
How was it clearly a typo when he repeated it with exactly the same spelling and capitalization, two times in a row?
And neither of those things are even toolkits like GTK: "GIMP Tolkit" is an image editor, and "GNOME Tolkit" is a desktop environment.
And even if you ignore the two typos and the two mis-namings, his whole point is factually incorrect, and jdub was correct
and not a revisionist when he said "That is ahistorical, and the misnaming doesn't help make your point".
I'm simply giving him the benefit of the doubt, and asking him to explain what he means, or why not only his main point was wrong, but also why he got both of the names wrong two times in a row, and thinks an image editor and a desktop environment are incorrectly spelled toolkits.
And he still hasn't explained, or admitted he made two typos and misnamed two projects in a row while trying to make an incorrect point, while claiming to be an expert tech writer, and accusing someone who was correct of being a revisionist, so the jury is still out. But your theory it's clearly a typo just doesn't wash. Maybe they're the names of his own forks, or maybe he's just a charlatan, who knows? ;) Why don't you ask him yourself.
Because he was incorrectly nitpicking himself, and was wrong to call somebody else a revisionist without citing any proof, while he was factually incorrect himself, and offering an appeal to authority of himself as a writer and "random Gtkmm contributor" instead. I too have lots of strong opinions about GTK, GNOME, and GIMP, so I am happy for the opportunity to write them up, summarize them, and share them.
You'll have to read the rest of the comment and follow the links to know what it says, because I already wrote and summarized it, and don't want to write it again just for you, because I don't believe you'd read it a second time if you didn't read it the first time. Just use ChatGPT, dude.
Then you will see that it has a lot to do with GTK and GNOME and GIMP, even including exclusive photos of Miguel de Icaza and his mom with a garden gnome flipping the bird.
>X gave Unix vendors something they had professed to want for years: a standard that allowed programs built for different computers to interoperate. But it didn’t give them enough. X gave programmers a way to display windows and pixels, but it didn’t speak to buttons, menus, scroll bars, or any of the other necessary elements of a graphical user interface. Programmers invented their own. Soon the Unix community had six or so different interface standards. A bunch of people who hadn’t written 10 lines of code in as many years set up shop in a brick building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that was the former home of a failed computer company and came up with a “solution:” the Open Software Foundation’s Motif.
>What Motif does is make Unix slow. Real slow. A stated design goal of Motif was to give the X Window System the window management capabilities of HP’s circa-1988 window manager and the visual elegance of Microsoft Windows. We kid you not.
>Recipe for disaster: start with the Microsoft Windows metaphor, which was designed and hand coded in assembler. Build something on top of three or four layers of X to look like Windows. Call it “Motif.” Now put two 486 boxes side by side, one running Windows and one running Unix/Motif. Watch one crawl. Watch it wither. Watch it drop faster than the putsch in Russia. Motif can’t compete with the Macintosh OS or with DOS/Windows as a delivery platform.
Motif today isn't that bad compared to the bloat of GTK4. Today's '486' in the era of Pentium 3's would be an Atom netbook. EMWM (enhanced MWM) + XFile flies. I quickly hacked NNTP auth support through some quick code and an Xresources value for NCSA Mosaic. Yes, that one.
Also, you get XFT and UTF-8 support thru fontconfig and XFT on every Motif based software. Far from the propietary Motif of 1996...
After seeing this whole thread a day late, I have to wonder: is the unspoken difference what "cross-platform" and "always" mean to different posters? To someone with my historical perspective, it grates a bit to see X Windows conflated with Linux as a platform.
My memory of the early days is consistent with what the wikipedia page says about GIMP. It was cross-platform on the typical Unix workstations that were around the UC Berkeley campus labs and XCF. This was things like Solaris, SunOS, HP-UX, Ultrix, and Irix.
Students in this milieu were just as likely to have some BSD variant on their home PC as Linux. I think it was later during and after the "Beowulf" scientific computing period when Linux started to dominate as the Unix-like platform for open source development.
Even in those days, Gtk+ applications were quite horrible on non-X11 platforms. GTK has never been a good cross-platform toolkit in contrast to e.g. Qt.
Maybe it’s a thing on Windows (I don’t know), but I’ve never seen anyone use GIMP or Inkscape on macOS. I’m pretty sure they exist somewhere, but all Mac users I know use Photoshop, Pixelmator or Affinity Photo rather than GIMP.
At home we use a phrase from an interview with a EU politician that was done BEFORE the ukraine war and asked about the US/CIA warnings of an upcomming war and he said "Always remember, the CIA was the agency that told US presidents for years the vietnam war would be over next week" ...
The irony here is that in this case they were right, and the Ukraine war is turning into a "Vietnam-like" defeat for Russia. Given another six months they might recapture all the territory lost since 2014.
Now, past performance is not a guarantee of future events, and the Dnipro river is a barrier in both directions, but the counteroffensive has been extremely effective.
> escalation
Escalation to what? With what forces?
The problem with the "escalation" narrative and the "ethnic Russians" argument is that they could easily be extended to, say, declaring that Estonia is part of Russia and nuclear weapons will be used to "defend" it.
Largely occupied by Russian speaking people, some of whom identity as Ukrainian (more now than before after Russia invaded and destroyed/raped/pillaged through their homes), some as Russian.
In the same way that there were Greek speaking Orthodox believing people who identified as Turks during the Greco-Turkish war and the subsequent population exchanges.
> Russia presently enjoys economic relations with China, India, Iran, etc. and a very high oil commodity price.
Just the other day there was an article here about the crap China sends Russia. India and China have both publicly criticised, delicately, the invasion. Iran is some reading partner!
The Russian economy is crumbling and they've faced a massive brain drain. They've been forced to conscription which had had terrible results (thousands running away, protests, cadavers). It's all downhill from here.
We're all in an energy crisis as we have to quickly ramp down fossil use to stave off the global climate catastrophe, and emissions are a global, not local problem. This is very badly overdue, and doing it now is still much easier and cheaper than the much steeper drop we would need later.
Don't know where you are getting the high oil price idea from, oil price is low now, way too low from climate crisis pov. It's lower than 10 years ago.
There's a lot of headlinse about winter and heating but actually most energy is used by non household users, it's mostly a industrial inputs problem assuming the regulators/politicians have the decency to prioritise households and essential services. And there's a lot of stored gas for the winter.
The "occupied by ethnic Russians" point is moot by now as Russia thoroughly alienated them or turned their cities to ruins. Yesterday they even had to impose martial law there.
If narrative is unbelievable, can you just follow the actions? Russian actions are these of genocide, and genocides aren't stopped by compromises.
Well, you're invited to join research on network ... because it's impossible to hide your ID from your access network. Tor and similar can hide your ID in transport, but that's no option in RAN.
i'd recommend to watch the presentation https://media.ccc.de/v/mch2022-273-openran-5g-hacking-just-g... in which it's made clearer, that the telco part wasn't the issue. 5G systems can be operated rather secure, but operators or subcontractors that build these cloud installation have strange ideas about trust and config.
"The public-private surveillance partnership is very old, and it's key to monopolists' strategy. It took 69 years to break up AT&T, because every time trustbusters came close, America's cops and spies and military would spring into action, insisting that the Bell System was America's "national champion," needed to defend it from foreign enemies. The Pentagon rescued Ma Bell from breakup in the 50s by claiming that the Korean War couldn't be won without AT&T's help"
I know some people in designing 5G, that were rather frustrated by outside influence on "can we have another unsafe option also, just in case we need it?"
Both informations are abstract identifiers and are decoded in a database to 'real' values only, PHY doesn't care about your decrypted ID. If the operator keeps that database closed, a reasonable privacy of who and where can be done.
Serious answer: I have seen operators taking this serious. It's also a european trend not to blindly accept law enforcement requests to open data anymore.
For US companies: read something on the recent twitter example.
Actually in 5G network there is almost nothing that isn't encrypted. What Karsten decribes is that cloud installations very often trust the infrastructure, but that's no special 5G problem.
If you're not doing the encryption, it isn't being done to solve your problems, it's being done to solve someone else's. That's not a bad thing and it may still help you on the net, but if you want to protect your own interests fully you need to be doing the encryption yourself.
"Doing the encryption yourself" doesn't mean you have to write the code personally... HTTPS in the browser (assuming correct implementation) counts as "doing it yourself" for this purpose. You just can't count on the infrastructure alone to do it for you.
