That was neat - clearly presented, not dumbed down and (as far as I can tell) not wrong anywhere. However I disagree about one of his later general points - specifically where he says
I think it's great that we have two competing theories for the same experiments and they both asked you to accept odd things, just different odd things. It comes down to what you're comfortable with really - whether you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation ... or a pilot wave theory.
No. It doesn't come down to what any of us is 'comfortable with'. The fundamental process of science - the so-called 'scientific method' - is about devising an experiment which can distinguish between these two theories, then carrying out the experiment and seeing which theory is supported by the results and which isn't. Devising that experiment can be very tough (check out the complexity needed to resolve whether Einstein's challenge to quantum mechanics was correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments - the experiments eventually showed it wasn't). But it's what scientists are paid for.