This is tragic, but it’s probably worth slowing down before drawing any conclusions.
The NY Post isn’t exactly known for careful reporting, and early details in cases like this are often incomplete or revised later.
Hopefully more reliable sources will clarify what actually happened. Until then, speculation doesn’t really help anyone.
I remember that about 20+ years ago a famous biologist was killed, and there were all kinds of speculations about terrorists, the government, and so on. A few years later, Snapped episode was released.
We should ask questions. When it comes to this, or Epstein, not speculating or asking the right questions makes us destined to subversion by an enemy. Remember the words of Lincoln. Foreign nations cannot win, unless they are aided by an enemy within.
Asking questions is not enough, because there is an unlimited supply of them. You can keep asking question after question to sustain endless doubt or to avoid certain conclusions.
Questions alone are not productive. Asking questions and being willing to deal with delayed, missing, incomplete, unexpected and unwelcome answers is where it's at.
Foreign nations would also like it if our shared narrative and culture breaks down due to everyone questioning everything all the time. How can we co-operate and co-ordinate if we agree on very little?
"The information about a possible connection between the two incidents was developed in the last 24 hours as detectives working on both cases compared notes, the sources said."
This kind of thing really should not be reposted (have duplicate posts I mean). I assumed a second nuclear scientist was murdered when I saw the headline.
I found those two sets of threads very demoralizing when they happened.
I like to think HN is better than the level of conspiracy theory adoption and 4chan-like haha dude died let me make jokes about it posts in those pages.
> So, if the news say "it was home invasion" is that enough to trust and believe it was home invasion?
Obviously not. It matters what surrounding facts and circumstances are reported, how extraordinary they are, how they are known, how they were cross-checked, who is doing the reporting, what is their track record around research and impartiality, etc etc.
Different people will come to different conclusions about who they trust for what reasons. Some people may conclude they do not trust "the news" in this particular case or in general. Some may have ideas about what they think really happened and will not be convinced otherwise.
Very, very few people, especially outside "the news", will do actual, open-minded research. A lot more will comment and speculate pointlessly.
This is America. A burglar, jealous relative or raging lunatic is most likely.
If we assume it is state action, which again, is like a teen assuming every zit is a malignant cancer, then putting Israel at the top of the list is pretty much only evidence of being in a filter bubble.
(EDIT: Never mind, looked at comment history, troll account.)
> it might be in response to israeli authorities having made clear that they're suspecting it was done by Iran
Israeli security is going to suspect everything is done by Iran because that is their threat model (and geopolitical incentive). If you asked enough security people in Seoul, they'd suspect North Korea. (Emphasis on suspicion. They wouldn't say it's likely Pyongyang if they're honest and competent.)
That's the nature of training focus on an enemy: you're constantly looking for and invalidating connections. Emphasis on active invalidation, which is the opposite of the scientific method, which starts with null hypotheses.
But scouting requires empirical feedback. If you have no way to invalidate your hypotheses, you end up in mind junk territory. Suspicions turn into assumptions turn into ground truths which fuel further suspicions. With each turn, they become increasingly baseless because that's what complex, unmoored processes do.
Reacting to a random shooting by looking to what Israel is saying about it is a signal that one has gone mind junk. (Not irretrievably. We all catch ourselves in idiot territory from time to time. I've criticized OP, so I'll put out an example: I initially suspected Iran was behind the Bondi Beach shootings because I thought high-powered rifles were illegal in Australia, that gangs wouldn't shoot up a synagogue, and I recalled Canberra expelling Iran's diplomatic mission because of something to do with bombing synagogues. Evidence showed that hypothesis to be flatly false. That not only means I need to reverse my hypothesis, but also be suspicious of future times I jump to conclusions around state-sponsored terrorism versus self-indoctrinated domestic terrrorism or more-banal criminality.)
Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
> Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
Does your hypothesis (to be clear, I'm not sure what it is) change given the new suspect [1]? (If not, is there any information which would change it?)
If I had to draw an inappropriately-broad delineation on types of thought, one might be between faith and science. Something held on faith cannot be disproven. This includes good things, like values. It includes bad things, like a single cause for all evil in the world. I find the category error between these particularly interesting, i.e. when someone believes they rationally, empirically and objectively hold an article of faith. (The inverse is the proving of a strongly, perhaps compulsively, held hypothesis.)
So I am an idiot for not accepting our complicit media (like the NYTimes, run by a Zio--t or Bari Weiss's Free Press) and questioning whether the nation that molested underage women on American soil to blackmail our congress, took out someone? I mean they blow up the limbs off children in Ghaza, so anyone putting it above a nation actively committing a genocide on another people is drinking the cool aid. I would argue you are a consumer of our media, and lack the critical reasoning to see the full picture. Look at who runs our congress. Look at who our billionaires are, and where the money is sent. That is the full story. It is a rabbit hole which the willing ignorant ignores. ALSO, I am asking questions because it is my AMERICAN right to know who is benefiting from my taxes, and who took out someone on my soil. You don't get to call me an idiot for pointing out who is an enemy of my country. You can choose to be ignorant and weak. it is always interesting how amongst the Russians or Iranians, only Hasbara comes after you. That tells you all you need to know :) You are free to be ignorant, for we live in a free country. I am free to not accept the propaganda fed by that nation and its loyal followers. Both Is--l and Iran are enemies of the United States. But the difference is Is--l has religious followers in positions of power, that provide it with an exemption to everything (from AIPAC not registering as a foreign entity, to our media willingly refusing to cover its active genocide (in Is--l's own elected officials' words), to getting our congress to welcome war criminals like Mileikowsky (per the ICJ)).
Isn’t the first thing to do in such cases is to check who in his primary and secondary circles has a licensed firearm? I am not detective, but that makes sense to me.
That could be any of hundreds of current and former students. It's not legal to do investigations like this since it ends up with a bunch of innocent people getting caught up in the surveillance dragnet, but they do it anyway and use a strategy called "parallel construction" to build a legal case against the suspect that coincidentally incriminates them for the primary crime.
No, that seems like a lazy technologist approach of reflexively hanging your hat on database queries. Police do actual police work like physically collecting evidence, seeing if they indicate any particular kind of gun or known ballistics, reconstructing the encounter, etc.
Also FWIW in MA firearms aren't licensed, rather their owners are. And ownership isn't registered, rather many types of transfers are supposed to be recorded.
You’re assuming I meant anything about checking against a database. I meant more that casings found at the scene should be compared to casing of bullets fired from guns of his known associates.
Granted, even if you find such matches, you still have to prove motive and opportunity.
It’s a little different for guns, they’re more tightly controlled and there’s often paper trail of their purchase and licensing of owners, so your example doesn’t apply.
I think there’s also the issue that you’re more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a random person. At the very least, matching bullet marks from shots fired from his associates guns to any casings found at the scene is just due diligence.
The reality of guns in the US is that a gun linked to a crime is likely to be part of a cohort of guns with a "short life to crime" having bounced through obfuscating straw purchases.
The most rapidly increasing (although still small in absolute numbers) class of gun associated with crime today are the 3D-printed variations:
Thousands of guns are found at crime scenes. What do they tell us?
So, yes, if this a crime of passion, a dispute between aquaintainces that escalated badly then there's a good chance the gun used has a history of ownership and registration.
If this is a crime related to home invasion gone badly then it's more likely to be a gun that fell off the radar some time past.
This is tragic, but it’s probably worth slowing down before drawing any conclusions. The NY Post isn’t exactly known for careful reporting, and early details in cases like this are often incomplete or revised later. Hopefully more reliable sources will clarify what actually happened. Until then, speculation doesn’t really help anyone.
Tragic.
We should not make any assumptions here.
I remember that about 20+ years ago a famous biologist was killed, and there were all kinds of speculations about terrorists, the government, and so on. A few years later, Snapped episode was released.
We should ask questions. When it comes to this, or Epstein, not speculating or asking the right questions makes us destined to subversion by an enemy. Remember the words of Lincoln. Foreign nations cannot win, unless they are aided by an enemy within.
Asking questions is not enough, because there is an unlimited supply of them. You can keep asking question after question to sustain endless doubt or to avoid certain conclusions.
Questions alone are not productive. Asking questions and being willing to deal with delayed, missing, incomplete, unexpected and unwelcome answers is where it's at.
I’d add that there is a difference between honestly asking questions and phrasing articles of faith as questions.
Foreign nations would also like it if our shared narrative and culture breaks down due to everyone questioning everything all the time. How can we co-operate and co-ordinate if we agree on very little?
"Brown mass shooting and MIT professor murder may be linked" - https://abc7.com/post/brown-mass-shooting-mit-professor-murd...
"The information about a possible connection between the two incidents was developed in the last 24 hours as detectives working on both cases compared notes, the sources said."
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46292708
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46295071
This kind of thing really should not be reposted (have duplicate posts I mean). I assumed a second nuclear scientist was murdered when I saw the headline.
c.f. MIT News obituary https://news.mit.edu/2025/nuno-loureiro-professor-director-p...
I found those two sets of threads very demoralizing when they happened.
I like to think HN is better than the level of conspiracy theory adoption and 4chan-like haha dude died let me make jokes about it posts in those pages.
This is extremely sad. My heart goes out to his family, friends, students, and peers.
Although this was probably a random act of violence, it makes me wonder.
As a nuclear scientist, could he have been involved in any sensitive research?
Maybe he "knew too much" and was deemed a NatSec/InfoSec threat by certain clandestine groups? It wouldn't be the first time...
This website is atrocious to read.
But on the actual topic, it could be a case of home invasion etc. No need to jump to conclusions of further malicious intent (yet).
So, if the news say "it was home invasion" is that enough to trust and believe it was home invasion?
> So, if the news say "it was home invasion" is that enough to trust and believe it was home invasion?
Obviously not. It matters what surrounding facts and circumstances are reported, how extraordinary they are, how they are known, how they were cross-checked, who is doing the reporting, what is their track record around research and impartiality, etc etc.
Different people will come to different conclusions about who they trust for what reasons. Some people may conclude they do not trust "the news" in this particular case or in general. Some may have ideas about what they think really happened and will not be convinced otherwise.
Very, very few people, especially outside "the news", will do actual, open-minded research. A lot more will comment and speculate pointlessly.
[flagged]
> Mo--ad operation most likely
This is America. A burglar, jealous relative or raging lunatic is most likely.
If we assume it is state action, which again, is like a teen assuming every zit is a malignant cancer, then putting Israel at the top of the list is pretty much only evidence of being in a filter bubble.
(EDIT: Never mind, looked at comment history, troll account.)
I'd wager it might be in response to israeli authorities having made clear that they're suspecting it was done by Iran.
Here and there it is also claimed that he was jewish, which I haven't seen any credible sources corroborate.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-strange-death-of-nuno-lo...
> it might be in response to israeli authorities having made clear that they're suspecting it was done by Iran
Israeli security is going to suspect everything is done by Iran because that is their threat model (and geopolitical incentive). If you asked enough security people in Seoul, they'd suspect North Korea. (Emphasis on suspicion. They wouldn't say it's likely Pyongyang if they're honest and competent.)
That's the nature of training focus on an enemy: you're constantly looking for and invalidating connections. Emphasis on active invalidation, which is the opposite of the scientific method, which starts with null hypotheses.
But scouting requires empirical feedback. If you have no way to invalidate your hypotheses, you end up in mind junk territory. Suspicions turn into assumptions turn into ground truths which fuel further suspicions. With each turn, they become increasingly baseless because that's what complex, unmoored processes do.
Reacting to a random shooting by looking to what Israel is saying about it is a signal that one has gone mind junk. (Not irretrievably. We all catch ourselves in idiot territory from time to time. I've criticized OP, so I'll put out an example: I initially suspected Iran was behind the Bondi Beach shootings because I thought high-powered rifles were illegal in Australia, that gangs wouldn't shoot up a synagogue, and I recalled Canberra expelling Iran's diplomatic mission because of something to do with bombing synagogues. Evidence showed that hypothesis to be flatly false. That not only means I need to reverse my hypothesis, but also be suspicious of future times I jump to conclusions around state-sponsored terrorism versus self-indoctrinated domestic terrrorism or more-banal criminality.)
Many words.
Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
> Why do you come to this conclusion, instead of, say, that they're looking for something to hand to the US that they can use for diplomatic and ideological cover?
Does your hypothesis (to be clear, I'm not sure what it is) change given the new suspect [1]? (If not, is there any information which would change it?)
If I had to draw an inappropriately-broad delineation on types of thought, one might be between faith and science. Something held on faith cannot be disproven. This includes good things, like values. It includes bad things, like a single cause for all evil in the world. I find the category error between these particularly interesting, i.e. when someone believes they rationally, empirically and objectively hold an article of faith. (The inverse is the proving of a strongly, perhaps compulsively, held hypothesis.)
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/man-suspected-in-sh...
So I am an idiot for not accepting our complicit media (like the NYTimes, run by a Zio--t or Bari Weiss's Free Press) and questioning whether the nation that molested underage women on American soil to blackmail our congress, took out someone? I mean they blow up the limbs off children in Ghaza, so anyone putting it above a nation actively committing a genocide on another people is drinking the cool aid. I would argue you are a consumer of our media, and lack the critical reasoning to see the full picture. Look at who runs our congress. Look at who our billionaires are, and where the money is sent. That is the full story. It is a rabbit hole which the willing ignorant ignores. ALSO, I am asking questions because it is my AMERICAN right to know who is benefiting from my taxes, and who took out someone on my soil. You don't get to call me an idiot for pointing out who is an enemy of my country. You can choose to be ignorant and weak. it is always interesting how amongst the Russians or Iranians, only Hasbara comes after you. That tells you all you need to know :) You are free to be ignorant, for we live in a free country. I am free to not accept the propaganda fed by that nation and its loyal followers. Both Is--l and Iran are enemies of the United States. But the difference is Is--l has religious followers in positions of power, that provide it with an exemption to everything (from AIPAC not registering as a foreign entity, to our media willingly refusing to cover its active genocide (in Is--l's own elected officials' words), to getting our congress to welcome war criminals like Mileikowsky (per the ICJ)).
indeed.
Isn’t the first thing to do in such cases is to check who in his primary and secondary circles has a licensed firearm? I am not detective, but that makes sense to me.
That could be any of hundreds of current and former students. It's not legal to do investigations like this since it ends up with a bunch of innocent people getting caught up in the surveillance dragnet, but they do it anyway and use a strategy called "parallel construction" to build a legal case against the suspect that coincidentally incriminates them for the primary crime.
No, that seems like a lazy technologist approach of reflexively hanging your hat on database queries. Police do actual police work like physically collecting evidence, seeing if they indicate any particular kind of gun or known ballistics, reconstructing the encounter, etc.
Also FWIW in MA firearms aren't licensed, rather their owners are. And ownership isn't registered, rather many types of transfers are supposed to be recorded.
You’re assuming I meant anything about checking against a database. I meant more that casings found at the scene should be compared to casing of bullets fired from guns of his known associates.
Granted, even if you find such matches, you still have to prove motive and opportunity.
When someone is stabbed, would you go find out everybody who has kitchen knives who lives within a two-mile radius?
You'd also be excluding everybody who illegally has a firearm or knife or whatever the murder weapon is.
It’s a little different for guns, they’re more tightly controlled and there’s often paper trail of their purchase and licensing of owners, so your example doesn’t apply.
I think there’s also the issue that you’re more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a random person. At the very least, matching bullet marks from shots fired from his associates guns to any casings found at the scene is just due diligence.
The reality of guns in the US is that a gun linked to a crime is likely to be part of a cohort of guns with a "short life to crime" having bounced through obfuscating straw purchases.
The most rapidly increasing (although still small in absolute numbers) class of gun associated with crime today are the 3D-printed variations:
Thousands of guns are found at crime scenes. What do they tell us?
* https://www.npr.org/2025/12/17/nx-s1-5641154/crime-guns-data...
So, yes, if this a crime of passion, a dispute between aquaintainces that escalated badly then there's a good chance the gun used has a history of ownership and registration.
If this is a crime related to home invasion gone badly then it's more likely to be a gun that fell off the radar some time past.