The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics has two variants: the Copenhagen variant (CV) and the anti-Copenhagen variant (ACV). Healey uses the Bell-Wigner locality condition to criticize the latter, which I do not advocate. 2 The conclusions of Healey's admirably written article are therefore welcome to me. But if I had wished to advocate the ACV, I do not think that his arguments would have dissuaded me. Specifically, as I shall explain, we should distinguish between Physical Locality and Metaphysical Locality. The (...) first principle is unexceptionable, but Healey needs the second for his reductio. At the end I shall briefly indicate why I reject the ACV and advocate instead the Copenhagen variant. (shrink)

I will argue that the Peres-Mermin square does not necessarily rule out a value-definite (deterministic) noncontextual hidden variable model if the operators are not given a physical interpretation satisfying the following two requirements: (i) each operator is uniquely realized by a single physical measurement; (ii) commuting operators are realized by simultaneous measurements. To underpin this claim, I will construct three hidden variable models for three different physical realizations of the Peres-Mermin square: one violating (i), another violating (ii), and a third (...) one violating both (i) and (ii). (shrink)