For someone who is trying to learn the basics of quantum entanglement, the distinction between local and non-local hidden variables isn't take that essential.
Or make those "hiddens" in the code above globals. Problem solved.
The problem is not the distinction between local and non-local hidden variables, but the that the "value" in that code doesn't depend on the measurement being performed.
You can't understand anything about quantum mechanics without knowing that in order to measure a qubit (or anything, really) you need an observable, which is completely missing from that JS code (for a qubit, the observable for a simple projective measurement could be represented by a direction in space).
Non-locality seems to be the least favorable way to resolve the Bell inequalities as far as most physicists are concerned. I'm not sure why though. I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff.
> I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff.
Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. It means losing existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations - i.e., causation.
>> Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here.
I think a multiverse, or anything "spooky at a distance" or the other stuff is exotic. Non-locality does take away our ability to do experiments in isolation I suppose, which is kind of a big problem, but it is limited to certain kinds of experiments and not (seemingly) relevant at larger scales.
Other way around. Of course physics has nothing to do with whether a theorem is true or false - but it has everything to do with whether our universe satisfies that theorem's hypotheses.
I'm also struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Non-local measurement outcomes have very little to do with causality. Are you arguing against specific interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics, which require privileged space–time foliations?
Or make those "hiddens" in the code above globals. Problem solved.