There's something odd going on here. Most of it is incorrect in a really strange way it hasn't ever seen before.
So yes, it's worth thinking about the MWI, because the consensus over the past near century has been that one of the deterministic theories of quantum mechanics (MWI and pilot wave theory) is correct, and it's just a matter of which. There wasn't really a non-deterministic theory of quantum mechanics until the mid-80s, and experiments are quickly ruling it out.
There are some severe category mistakes being made in this post though. First, grouping the MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation together doesn't really make sense. That's fine, it's often done, but it is a category mistake and it's much harder to find someone in the actual field of the foundations of quantum mechanics doing it.
The history there is that early on in the field, there was an abusive man by the name of Niels Bohr who amassed the social capital necessary to push for an overall approach to physics which he thought was the true path forward for socialism. If other socialists disagreed, he would use his social capital to smear them and mob them out of the field or intimidate them into silence, and this included Erwin Schrödinger, Grete Hermann, Albert Einstein, Hugh Everett, Louis de Broglie.
His conception of the true path forward for socialism involved reducing reasoning about physics to different sentiments. You could express this sentiment or that sentiment, but of course, no real theorizing was done. This grouped together theories, which provided some description of physical reality, and descriptions of what one desires or approves of. The Copenhagen interpretation is the latter, while theories are the former. Today, very few people, socialists and physicists included, assent to this philosophical view of physics, and instead delineate between theories on the one hand and non-cognitive attitudes on the other.
But the convention stuck, hence sometimes you'll find the Copenhagen interpretation being grouped with Everettian, Bohmian, and collapse theories.
Second, IDENTIFYING the many worlds theory with the Copenhagen interpretation definitely doesn't make sense. The reason you'll "hear a lot about Everett" is that he resisted Bohr's abuse and proposed the many worlds theory. To say he isn't important to the theory that he was the first person to come up with, which Bohr actively shut down because it was a threat to the Copenhagen interpretation, is abuse apologia and erasing a victim who quit the field of physics because of what Niels Bohr did to him. This would be like if you went oh yeah Paul McCartney came up with all these ideas for how to snowboard really well, and if you look into it you'll hear a bunch about Heather Mills, don't worry about her she's not important.
This is giving credit to the abuser over the victim, and it performs a drastic category mistake. The Copenhagen interpretation was a set of attitudes, sometimes assenting to various principles like the principle of complementarity, sometimes committing to being a part of a sociological phenomenon, and which definitely left no room for many worlds.
Third, many worlds isn't unique in committing to superpositions. Superpositions are a normal thing, it's just that many worlds theorists believe they occur when two branches of the universe haven't decohered yet, and other theorists think they're other things (two wave packets not decohering yet, for instance).
