I remember liking this book, vaguely, but it was quite some time ago, and it does have some issues which detract from it a lot, namely outright errors, but also some things aren't mentioned which change the flavor of the text. It's not as self complete as it seems.
I recommend reading critiques:
https://www.sunclipse.org/wp-content/downloads/2019/02/becker.pdf (From Gender to Gleason: The Case of Adam Becker’s What Is Real? by Blake C. Stacey. Critiques the presentation of history in what isn't mentioned in the book as well as pointing out actual errors.)
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5053411 - Points out he gets the EPR experiment wrong, which is kinda a big deal.
Peter Woit had a critique, if I remember correctly, as well.