Hossenfelder tries to explain superdeterminism

Well, I knew she would have to be doing this soon, given the recent arXiv paper in which she was a co-author.  Here's Sabine Hossenfelder trying to explain superdeterminism and her expectation that it
solves all quantum oddities:

 

I don't understand the issues fully, but my impression is that Sabine underplays the philosophical significance of it. I wonder what other physicists think.  (To give more detail:  she seems to make an argument that it has no "real" implication at the macro level - but I am not sure that's right...) 

Update:   from comments following the video on Youtube, I pick out a couple that deal with the retro-causality interpretation, which she never mentions:

Before measurement of the particle in the double slit experiment, it is non-localised in time, it literally occupies all possible positions starting when it was emitted up to the point it is observed. This is how a single particle can go through both slits and interfere with itself. After it is observed, it becomes localised in time and acts like a single particle, not a wave. This is why observing before the slits eliminates interference, and does not if you observe afterwards. The crazy part is that the act of observation retroactively affects the past. If you observe before the slit, you do not get interference. If you observe afterwards, you get interference. This is because the wave collapse propagates backwards to the point the particle was emitted. Particles moving forwards and backwards through time acting like a wave, until the point they are observed at which point they never moved forwards and backwards through time in the first place and were always single particles, explains all the 'spookiness' and also explains that the hidden variables are hidden in time and as entities moving linearly through time we will never be able to observe them. Once you get your head around this concept, the weird behaviour of particles in quantum mechanics becomes obvious and logical.

 Mind you, the commenter was "Microdoser", so I'm not sure I should trust him (or her) given my skepticism about that practice.

Another one:

I would add that many physicists assume entaglement can only propagate forward in time. Basic time invariance says that entanglement must be able to propagate backward in time just as well as forward.

And:

So Is Superdeterminism described more by the future affecting the past, or by particles/ wave functions reacting differently depending on what is around them and what they interact with? thank you for the video

Last one:

If the detectors are far apart, and they do influence the measurement, then there is fast-than-light effects happening. (aka "spooky action at a distance"). And maybe this is the misunderstanding in communications with Bell or Zeilinger. As far I understand, they assumed superdeterminism to be a loophole to remove non-locality, in the sense to say the detector isn't actually choosing the angle of measurement, randomly, but is deterministic as well, and the particles kind of "know" this. Bell even got so far as to take a photon from the cosmic background radiation to determine which angle to measure at, which would leave the entanglement of the detector all the way back to the big bang.. and thats what I think they called absurd in "no free will". Thus SD and keeping non-locality, yeah why not. No issue with it, it is supposed to fix non-locality, I really would like to see a backdown how it should work, without making the universe holistic (and thats where I said in effect destryoing non-locality all together). Honestly, I don't have an issue with real faster-than-light effects as long the "cosmic censorship" is somehow in affect that it doesn't allow information communication. So maybe the wave form is physically real (the so called particle is really smeared out) and maybe the collapse is really faster than light. And maybe in case of entangled particles the waves are really connected far apart until collapse. So what. If this is reality, I don't care if Einstein wouldn't consider it beautiful ;)