I also found the paper to have more depth than I expected. I was going to remark that it gives the EPR paradox too short a shrift, but I realised that it is not

I also found the paper to have more depth than I expected. I was going to remark that it gives the EPR paradox too short a shrift, but I realised that it is not arguing against the actual paradox, but rather the paradox as it is most commonly presented/understood and "mystically" explained. If anyone is interested, the original EPR paper is readable and profound in that timeless way that characterises much of what Einstein touched: http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf