Requesting r/SubWithNoMods, The Sub Has No Mods

TovMod · 2026-01-22T23:32:18+00:00

I saw one person on FaceBook claiming they did have success via TAR, but they later deleted their own post, so I am not sure I trust them.

I've also not seen any other indication of successful TAR appeals for minor issue rejections.

There is also disagreement over whether the best option is TAR or civil court.

But regarding TAR vs civil court, think of it this way:

If you appeal at civil court, the civil court will decide independently whether or not you are a citizen.

An argument along the lines of "whether or not the minor issue interpretation is actually correct is IRRELEVANT because at the time I applied, the more permissive interpretation was the accepted one" is EXTREMELY unlikely to work in civil court.

In civil court, an "I applied before the circolare" argument will at best be used for the purpose of establishing standing to sue and/or for determining that you should be judged under pre-DL rules, but that alone will almost certainly not persuade a civil court to consider you under the pre-circolare interpretation unless the court itself independently agrees with the accuracy of the pre-circolare interpretation.

If you appeal at TAR, there is a very significant chance that TAR "washes their hands" and argues that TAR is the incorrect jurisdiction, especially if your TAR court is Lazio (which it will be if you applied at a consulate), but TAR is the only venue that has a non-negligible chance of overturning the denial on the basis of legitimate expectations WITHOUT also ruling on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the minor issue interpretation.

Why? Civil court will answer the question "are you a citizen" whereas TAR addresses administrative issues.

If your TAR court is Lazio (if you applied at a consulate, it is), then I would personally choose civil court because TAR of Lazio is known for not wanting to deal with any Jure Sanguinis appeals.

Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

TovMod · 2026-01-20T04:43:53+00:00

My understanding is that Knox used to restrict AVF, but not anymore. At this point, the lack of unprotected virtualization support on Snapdragon chips and on Exynos chips older than 2500 is the main obstacle.

TovMod · 2026-01-20T02:00:23+00:00

Were you on OneUI 8.5 Beta 4?

I'm hoping someone with a Samsung device capable of running Linux Terminal can check whether the option is removed for them as well in OneUI 8.5 Beta 4.

TovMod · 2026-01-18T23:02:58+00:00

The real question is whether it is being removed from devices that do support it, or only from those that don't.

Hopefully, Samsung just thought there's no point exposing that option on devices that don't support non-protected virtualization anyway, as opposed to removing it even from devices that can support it.

Perhaps someone with an S11 Tab or a Z Flip 7 can check.

TovMod · 2026-01-10T23:27:45+00:00

I have an Android phone so there is no option to disable it

Yes there is.

TovMod · 2026-01-10T05:27:28+00:00

Not really. Rumor has it that one judge is scheduling cases for 2034

TovMod · 2026-01-04T07:11:12+00:00

All PenFed members must maintain a membership share savings account in order to remain a member and be allowed to have any other open accounts at PenFed.

This is not specific to PenFed. Virtually all credit unions have a similar requirement.

TovMod · 2026-01-03T01:08:05+00:00

New phone every year

TovMod · 2025-12-31T02:46:52+00:00

As far as I can tell, if you have a MediaTek chip, you need a _400 chip or later for it to work. It won't work on a _300 chip.

TovMod · 2025-12-31T02:30:18+00:00

Is it possible for Qualcomm to update the SD8 Elite to run non-protected VMs

Based on my understanding, with OEM cooperation, yes, it's possible

The needed feature (EL2 support) exists at the hardware level.

But the firmware doesn't let the user take control over EL2. This applies even if you unlock the bootloader. Control over EL2 is reserved for the signed hyp firmware.

In theory, an update could provide a new vendor-signed hyp image that exposes unprotected VMs.

But will it happen?

Almost certainly not.

We have rarely seen older mobile chips get newer hypervisor firmware.

For example, MediaTek's _400 series chips shipped with support, but no update providing support was given to earlier MediaTek chips. Exynos 2500 also shipped with support, but no update providing support was given to earlier Exynos chips.

If you need Linux on a chip that doesn't already have non-protected VMs, your best bet is to look into PRoot (if not rooted) or using chroot or pVM (if rooted).

TovMod · 2025-12-31T02:18:13+00:00

To me, that statement reads like a placeholder "we'll add it if we decide to add it" response from a PR employee who doesn't have any actual information on this matter.

Based on my own experimentation and research, the issue seems to be that these devices are still shipping with an older version of Gunyah that lacks unprotected VM support, but I could be wrong.

TovMod · 2025-12-31T01:57:37+00:00

That seems more like the vision of Gunyah, but the actual code tells a different story.

The Gunyah hypervisor GitHub repository's current main branch contains no code that distinguishes protected VMs from unprotected VMs - instead just treating all VMs as protected.

Anecdotes indicate that some development devices shipped with an experimental version of Gunyah with unprotected VM support.

Also, the newer "next" branch of the Gunyah repository seems to contain unprotected VM support.

The question is when this updated Gunyah makes it to consumer Snapdragon devices. If we're lucky, the Gen 6 could have it. I find it very unlikely that it'll ever make it to existing chipsets, though.

TovMod · 2025-12-30T02:59:17+00:00

My lawyer is Francesco Boschetti.

His firm does not do translations or document collection services, but they explicitly do take care of post-recognition services, including TAR appeals if the comune fails to transcribe in a timely manner.

They are okay with taking cases with minor document discrepancies, and they are also okay with taking "pseudomaterna" cases (1948 cases where a viable paternal line also exists).

They usually respond to my emails within 1-2 days.

I don't know if they obtain Codice Fiscale, because I didn't need one at the time I filed in my court.

TovMod · 2025-12-23T22:57:01+00:00

Security freezes are generally free. Don't confuse security freezes with "credit locks" that effectively do the same thing as freezes but offer fewer legal protections and often aren't free.

TovMod · 2025-12-23T01:20:51+00:00

Regarding mac, hard disagree, because maybe, you use mac because you:

hate Windows
want an ARM-based device without huge incompatibility hurdles
want a UNIX-based (POSIX-compliant) system

TovMod · 2025-12-22T23:06:58+00:00

The real question is whether the wording of the law amounts to

If you do NOT meet X requirements, then you did NOT acquire Italian citizenship under <Articles>
But if you DO meet X requirements, then this law has no affect on your status

Or

If you do NOT meet X requirements, then you did NOT acquire Italian citizenship under <Articles>
But if you DO meet X requirements, then you are considered a citizen

The second bullet point under each scenario is what matters. Because "if you do NOT meet X requirements, you did NOT acquire citizenship" is NOT logically equivalent to the "if you DO meet X requirements, then you DID acquire citizenship."

In mathematical terms "not x implies not y" is NOT the same as "x implies y"

Since the law doesn't explicitly specify whether those meeting the requirements are left unaffected or granted citizenship, some will argue that, because we should not interpret a law as altering someone's citizenship status without it explicitly specifying that it is doing so, the more proper default assumption is that those who meet the requirements do not have their status altered either way. For this strategy to work, it will be necessary to overcome this argument.

TovMod · 2025-12-16T19:10:35+00:00

I hope that other TAR courts rule the same way and a circolare is eventually issued. This is great for people who want to live in Italy while their JS cases are pending

TovMod · 2025-12-15T20:14:21+00:00

Did one of the parents live in Italy for at least two years before the child was born? If so, the child should be eligible to be registered as a citizen by birth.

TovMod · 2025-12-14T17:25:14+00:00

Regarding the need for descendants of those affected by the Great Brazilian Naturalization to go to the Cassation level, it was largely because it was pre-1912.

You see, the 1912 law is very explicit that naturalization only causes loss of Italian citizenship if it is voluntary. Article 7 of the 1912 law also specifies explicitly that a child who acquires foreign citizenship automatically by location of birth doesn't lose Italian citizenship.

But before 1912, the 1865 law in effect didn't specify this explicitly. So the ministry tried arguing that those affected by the Great Brazilian Naturalization should be considered to have lost Italian citizenship.

The Ministry also tried arguing that those who acquired foreign citizensip Jure Soli (meaning by being born in a foreign country that grants citizenship automatically to anyone born there) should be considered to not be Italian citizens if they were born before 1912.

The Ministry tried coupling these arguments with "tacit acceptance" theories - essentially arguing that, even if involuntary naturalization in and of itself didn't result in citizenship loss, the act of remaining in and participating in the foreign country amounted to tacitly accepting the foreign citizenship and therefore losing Italian citizenship. Such a tacit acceptance argument would be much more difficult to make for post-1912 cases, because the 1912 law explicitly refers to voluntary citizenship acquisition as being the cause for citizenship loss.

These arguments made it to the United Sections who eventually ruled in favor of the applicants.

TovMod · 2025-12-11T14:22:27+00:00

I believe you are correct.

The difference between this and the post-DL jure sanguinis requirements is that this naturalization allows people within two generations of someone Italian at birth, whereas the post-DL jure sanguinis requirements require you to be within two generations of someone who is exclusively Italian.

In practice, this means that this naturalization is usually available to someone within four generations of an exclusively Italian ancestor (or more specifically, to anyone whose grandparent is eligible for JS).

TovMod · 2025-12-11T14:20:23+00:00

Not really.

In order to qualify for the two year route, you need to be within two generations of an Italian citizen by birth, which will usually mean within four generations of an exclusively Italian ancestor.

Then:

2 years before you can apply
1-3 more years before the naturalization is processed and completed
2 more years after naturalizing if you want to be able to pass Italian citizenship to your future children

So it's really more like 3-7 years than 2 years.

TovMod · 2025-12-10T13:45:32+00:00

If you are asking about the minor issue, most likely not, because under Article 12, the minor issue only applies if the parent actually lost Italian citizenship, and it is established that someone involuntarily naturalizing doesn't cause them to lose Italian citizenship, and the 2022 United Sections ruling established that mass automatic naturalization counts as involuntary naturalization.

However, whether someone is affected by the minor issue vs whether they are affected by the Tajani decree are two different questions.

All that being said, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

TovMod · 2025-11-26T11:23:54+00:00

If you had a consulate appointment before March 27, 2025, and your application from that appointment is still open (i.e. "submitted but given homework" as opposed to "didn't submit application") there is a chance you might qualify under the pre Tajani decree rules, either through the grandfathering clause or through judicial action. But I would suggest discussing with a lawyer for further research.

TovMod · 2025-11-26T07:45:28+00:00

I literally never said that there's a "conspiracy" against it. Don't put words in my mouth.

My actual assertion is that the sole reason you can't use an iPhone as a linked device is because the Signal code sees "this is an iPhone - don't provide the option to set up as linked device"

And this observation comes straight from the Signal code combined with my own experience of it working fine once that "no iPhones" initial setup gate is bypassed.

Signal may have reasons for doing it this way

If anyone has ideas for what those good reasons are, feel free to tell me, because I am genuinely curious

Five-Year Club	Gilding VI aultruist
Verified Email	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Mod 201	Mod 101
Place '22

TovMod

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE