Say we&#x27;re measuring spins of entangled particles with random entangled spins.<p>So the real problem isn&#x27;t that &quot;when one is up, then the other will magically be up too.&quot; That could be accomplished with local hidden variables (e.g. shared seeds on a PRNG, or your examples).<p>The real problem is that when you measure A in the &quot;up&quot; direction, and then B in the &quot;10 degrees east of up&quot; direction, then B seems to know that you measured A in the &quot;up&quot; direction.<p>That is to say: B&#x27;s probability distribution as a function of the direction its being measured is correlated to the direction that A is measured. There&#x27;s no way to construct an &quot;A-independent&quot; probability distribution of B&#x27;s results for arbitrary directions. The probabilities won&#x27;t sum to 1 and still match experimental results.<p>It&#x27;s unfortunate that &quot;A up&quot; therefore &quot;B up&quot; is a degenerate case of this reality where classicality actually works, because it leads to confusion.<p>(Also the reason you can&#x27;t use this magic to communicate FTL is that you can only ask one yes&#x2F;no question of each particle, and because B&#x27;s probability distribution is distorted in a symmetric way based upon A&#x27;s measurement, you&#x27;re still going to get a 50&#x2F;50 response for yes&#x2F;no questions asked of random entangled particles)<p>Feel free to comment, as I paste this on every misunderstanding of Bell&#x27;s Theorem here, and I edit to make more clear each time.