History of post ‘How to Secure Your WiFi Router’

Revision 2 · Aug 01, 2025 1:07pm · View this (the most recent) version (v3)

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ To understand the gravity of this error, we have to put it in the context of the

How is this possible? Why do otherwise rational men do blatantly irrational things? It’s because the philosophical undercurrent of our age, which most people never make explicit to themselves but nevertheless absorb uncritically from the culture around them, endorses such mixtures. This undercurrent originated in today’s form with Immanuel Kant.

At the height of the Enlightenment, as reason came close to winning the age-old war mysticism had started against it, people had to choose between these fundamentally incompatible sides. They are incompatible because [one cannot possibly compromise](https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html#order_2) on truth and falsehood or reason and unreason without departing from -reason+truth and -truth,+reason, respectively. But, [in the words](/posts/why-people-like-kant-and-why-they-re-wrong) of devoted Kantian Friedrich Paulsen, people’s “heart[s]” still “clung” to unreason; due to the incompatibility I’ve described, they felt torn in two. Kant designed his ‘philosophy’ to [absolve them from the responsibility of choosing between reason and unreason](/posts/why-people-like-kant-and-why-they-re-wrong): he limited science to the material world and mysticism to morality. In Kant’s own words (!) from his *Critique of Pure Reason*, “the doctrine of morality asserts its place and the doctrine of nature [ie, science] its own” ([B xxix](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Pure_Reason/qqeX8MJurLkC); blaming the fields for his own choice), and “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith […]” ([B xxix-xxx](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Pure_Reason/qqeX8MJurLkC); bold emphasis removed). He then relegated philosophy to the role of arbiter between the two. In short, he *split* science and morality to *unify* reason and unreason. This way, he made it seem possible for people to have their cake and eat it, too.

If you’re wondering how it was possible for physicists to do scientifically brilliant work for Nazis, say, thus physically and morally enabling their crimes; if you’re wondering how the land of poets and thinkers, as Germany has often been described, spiraled as far down into the abyss as it did, *that’s* how: Kant laid the groundwork.[^4] A well-integrated mind is both moral *and* scientific, but the Kantian split figuratively turns people into schizophrenics.[^5] That said, consider once more those ostensibly brilliant minds such as Oppenheimer with his four-leaf clover or Mitchell with his experiments in ‘extrasensory perception’:

Revision 1 · Jul 22, 2025 5:17am · View this version (v2)

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Deutsch has said mixed things applying to the reversal between values and emotio

On the other hand, Deutsch [more recently said](https://nav.al/deutsch-files-ii) in an interview with Naval Ravikant that “if you want to explain how things come about by this process ‘thought’, then it leads to certain conclusions, such as […] following the fun.” But *following* the fun is the reversal Rand warns against. Has Deutsch reversed the roles to appease irrational people? It wouldn’t be his first attempt at appeasement: contrary to Rand’s stance that “a rational man never distorts or corrupts his own standards and judgment in order to appeal to the irrationality, stupidity or dishonesty of others”,[^7] Deutsch [hides his unpopular views about animal insentience](/posts/views-on-animal-sentience-in-the-beginning-of-i). Ravikant, who has [spouted](https://x.com/naval/status/1702091318246490398) irrationalities such as “Science and spirituality are both the search for truth” (you will recognize Kant all over the comments), repeats the reversal error in front of millions of followers by [citing](https://x.com/arjunkhemani/status/1834942974100177322) Deutsch as saying to “just do whatever’s fun […]”. Tanett [says](https://youtu.be/5e2LWxaqQUQ?t=70) she has “always disliked” the word ‘fun’; that she has “always thought that [it] is too misleading because it can get mistaken for […] mindless fun.” But she also [endorses](https://x.com/Untrulie/status/1941112294014067193) the view that “the true productivity hack is having your emotions be aligned with what you’re doing”, which, she concludes, is “literally the Fun Criterion!!” That description is better than just *mindless* fun, but as I’ve explained, mere alignment is not enough.

Recall Kant’s attempt to make reason and unreason coexist, his attempt to limit reason; then, note Tanett’s [claim](https://x.com/reasonisfun/status/1937825159911809489) that “if you try to learn [about certain falsehoods] *intellectually* aka explicitly, *it won’t typically work*” – by which she means: reason (the intellect) is limited. Note her -[claim](https://youtu.be/idvGlr0aT3c?t=831)+[claim](https://youtu.be/idvGlr0aT3c?t=885) from her conversation with Deutsch that “you can +do *deliberation by intuition*”, by which she means: let your thought processes be guided by emotions for which you cannot account. Lastly, note her [claim](https://youtu.be/idvGlr0aT3c?t=831) from the same conversation that “you can just kind of do *without thinking* in an explicit way; you can just kind of *follow your -intuitions*”; or her [claim](https://youtu.be/idvGlr0aT3c?t=885) from the same conversation that “you can do *deliberation by intuition*”+intuitions*” – by which she means: be rational, except when you don’t feel like it. This is not something +an *unapologetic*, *unreserved* -advocates+advocate of reason would say. (Italics mine throughout this paragraph. To Deutsch’s credit, he pushes back against some of Tanett’s nonsense. One commenter on their conversation even [recognizes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvGlr0aT3c&lc=UgzlhgNyFFcOUei5NrF4AaABAg) similarities to Kant, comparing the fun criterion to “Kant’s free play of faculties […]”.)

Since emotions are *automatic* responses, they are not part of a deliberate process. They are the result of practiced deliberation. Rand [likened](https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html#order_2) the subconscious to a computer which a) you can program with your conscious mind and b) gives you “print-outs” of your value judgments in the form of emotions. So the same goes for fun: the associated emotions should be print-outs, reflections of your value judgments. Due to the immediate, automatic nature of emotions, one has to take great care not to mistake one’s emotions for oracles, ie infallible sources of truth. Just because emotions are lightning fast does not mean they are infallible or even reliable.[^8]

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Tools such as schedules can help you be more productive. But Deutsch has a deep-
> % link: https://takingchildrenseriously.com/creativity-and-untidiness/
> I find that if I have to do something at a fixed time—for instance, I have to give a lecture—then I find myself increasingly unable to work in the period before the lecture, because I am aware in the back of my mind that whatever trains of thought I embark upon cannot be open-ended. This ‘planning blight’ often begins even on the previous day. That’s why I try to arrange my life so that there are as few fixed-time obligations as possible.

Now, if this was just some random guy saying this, you would immediately recognize the quoted stance for what it is: a hangup and irrationality not deserving of further consideration. -Now, to+To Deutsch’s credit, he has [made it clear](https://youtu.be/idvGlr0aT3c?t=17) that he doesn’t want to give life advice – but some might still cargo-cult him. He is a luminary scientist, after all. And people often credit unreason for the achievements of reason while blaming reason for unreason’s shortcomings. So let’s consider his stance.

There’s a grain of truth in what Deutsch is saying: creativity cannot be scheduled or planned; the growth of knowledge is unpredictable. Likewise, you can’t plan the growth of a city; you can’t plan your life. These things *evolve* – just consider how [ugly](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/77/8e/f3/778ef36acf60a822ade98186c1b752da.jpg) planned cities often are and how [beautiful](https://img0.oastatic.com/img2/59755036/max/wandern-in-monschau.jpg) unplanned, evolved cities can be. But you *can* plan a building; you *can* plan your day, your week, and even beyond that. You can and should have long-range personal goals. And those goals, your long-range plans, can evolve as you correct errors. Fun, however, is [short-range, spur of the moment](https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-conflicts-of-mens-interests-2/) – if you focus too much on fun, you could inadvertently pursue something that’s fun today but destroys you tomorrow. Delaying a bit of fun now to have more fun later is not necessarily a compromise or irrational if it means achieving a greater value by one’s own light.

@@ -105,9 +105,9 @@ To give another example, I have been reviving my interest in rollerblading latel

Now, imagine a talented rollerblader – he is very good and has serious ambitions but dreads fixed-time commitments. This fear will necessarily limit how far he can take his ambitions because he won’t be able to, say, show up to a competition on time. Organizers won’t just relax that requirement; the real world does not work that way.

To-do lists are another example. I like making them and setting goals for the day. If I don’t make them, I may get sidetracked in such a way that I trade a higher value for a lower one if I don’t notice it while it’s happening. To-do lists can help me notice that: they help me hold myself -accountable.+accountable, leading to a sense of accomplishment that would be hard to get without them. Same goes for schedules and especially deadlines, which provide a sense of urgency; they make a project matter more. With practice, one can reduce the use of such tools over time, but the requisite knowledge does not come automatically. Creative work does not happen automatically; beyond a certain level of complexity, it takes positive time-management skills that need to be developed.

More generally, whenever a fixed-time commitment interferes with an otherwise open-ended train of thought, I write down open problems to work on once the commitment is over. The resulting list helps me resume my train of -thought anytime.+thought. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but again, it’s a skill one can practice. And for problem situations that are complex enough, going only off of memory is too error prone anyway. (Check out my tool [Veritula](https://veritula.com) to track problems and criticisms and resume work on a given problem situation anytime.)

Sometimes, life gets in the way – even if you don’t have any fixed-time commitments, there’s still sleep, hunger, bathroom breaks, and so on. What’s the big deal? Your subconscious keeps working on problems in the meantime anyway; it may even surprise and delight you with a solution later. A simple fixed-time commitment like a lecture shouldn’t result in “planning blight”.

Original · Apr 13, 2025 8:31am · View this version (v1)

# How to Secure Your WiFi Router

Your WiFi router’s default settings can be dangerous. You should change them to secure your home network. I’m not a networking expert, so follow these steps at your own risk, but I believe they should make your home network more secure.

1. **Change default credentials to more secure alternatives.**

    Routers usually come with default credentials printed on the casing somewhere. Use them once to set up your router, then change them to something more secure. The password is usually pretty short and not exactly safe from brute-force attacks. Use a password manager to generate store a more secure password for you, then update the password in your router’s admin panel.

2. **Change the default SSID to something else.**

    The SSID is your ‘service-set identifier’, aka your network name. Automated hacking tools will try default settings first, so it’s a good idea to change the SSID to something new. Don’t include any personal information. Something like ‘cats-are-great’ is a fine SSID.

3. **Do NOT hide the SSID.**

    It may sound counterintuitive, but hiding the SSID will just cause your devices to constantly ping the surrounding area asking if the known network is there. For example, if your cellphone is connected to your WiFi at home and then you take it outside, it constantly broadcasts your home SSID to the public. I’m not aware of any benefits to hiding the SSID.

4. **Disable Universal Plug and Play (UPnP).**

    Depending on your router, UPnP settings can be located under ‘Device Discovery’.

    > % source: Brannon Dorsey
    > % link: https://medium.com/@brannondorsey/attacking-private-networks-from-the-internet-with-dns-rebinding-ea7098a2d325
    > % date: Jun 19, 2018
    > […] UPnP servers provide admin-like control over router configuration to any unauthenticated machine on the network over HTTP.

    As Dorsey explains, UPnP makes your router susceptible to DNS-rebinding attacks. These are powerful attacks that can control other devices on your network (IoT) and even de-anonymize TOR users. Nasty stuff.

5. **Disable remote management.**

    Again useful for reducing attack vectors, particularly IoT-related ones.

6. **Enable WPA3, if available.**

    WPA3 (WiFi Protected Access 3) is the latest security standard for WiFi networks. It offers the best encryption and password protection. If you have so far been using WPA2, force previously connected devices to switch to WPA3 by ‘forgetting’ and rejoining the network, otherwise they may continue using WPA2. Once again, use a password manager to generate a strong password.