But it’s up to airline how they present NOTAMS to the pilot in the briefing package.
They can (and do) use geolocation present in some (many) NOTAMs to filter them out. For example do not show the NOTAM just because the flight path intersects with the airspace. They can do even better - consider not only location but also altitude range, the best flight planning systems can consider also estimated time of arrival of the plane near the location of the NOTAM and filter out those which are not yet valid or those which are expired (the validity range usually present in each message).
This makes the problem of including the NOTAM a 4-dimensional - geographical location 2 dimensions, altitude 1 dimension and a time. Not the easiest to solve, but solvable. Of course for every dimension margins can be applied to accommodate re-routes or departure delays, or ATC commands.
There is no written in stone standard of how to present NOTAMS. Newer may be displayed at the beginning, etc Not to say that they can (and do) separate airfield and airspace messages to segment the large set onto meaningful subsets.
I mean there ways to make sure important information is not lost and less important available if needed.
Airlines aren't the only things doing "air missions" - there is software that filters out much of it, but it IS quite archaic (similar to how the "official weather" notifications are set out).
Look at the Ukraine one for a pretty scary example.
The official weather notifications (METARs/TAFs) can be displayed in more modern ways, but many pilots like the brief coded weather messages because they can be easily skimmed for an entire route of flight.
In my mind, AIRMETs were a bigger problem - they had limitations in terms of how they were geographically defined, time range, and lack of flexibility (e.g. differentiating turbulence vs LLWS vs strong surface winds for AIRMET Tango) - but that's been fixed with the newer G-AIRMET feed[1], which is based around BUFR[2] instead of plain text.
The catch being you can't easily convey G-AIRMETs via voice or in an non-interactive environment, so we still keep the legacy text-based AIRMET feed around in parallel.
Double nit: this was not a misuse the deprecated term "The Ukraine" but the correct use of 'the' attaching to "Ukrainian one" referring to the NOTAM basically telling everyone to remain clear of Ukrainian airspace.
nit RFI: What is it about "Ukraine" (phonetically maybe?) that makes me, a westerner in the US, want to put a "the" before it every time I reference it as a country instead of just, you know, using the name of the country?
I don't go around calling other proper nouns "the" (mostly). I don't call my son "Hey there, the Bob, how was school today?" (his name is not bob). But if I had named my son Ukraine then I feel like I'd change that sentence to: "Hey! The Ukraine, how was school today?"
Why is this a thing? I have a formal background in applied/computational linguistics and a bit of trivial searching doesn't really reveal why this is a general tendency. Hurt's my brain meat.
Depending on your age and general personal history, in the past it was very common to see references and use of "the Ukraine" to talk about the region/area as well as the country (that mostly covers that geographical area). It could be remnants of your recollections popping up subconsciously.
In this case it really was meant to be projected as similar to "Have you seen the Bob document yet?"
In German (maybe some other languages too?) it's common to use "the" to refer to a 3rd person, so if Bob's sister Charlotte came home from school but not Bob, she could say "The Bob went to the mall".
Seems like it's the same way in Finnish, Finnish F1 driver Mika Häkkinen referred to Michael Schumacher as "The Michael".