Interpretation of quantum mechanics became so problematic that even outstanding scientists seemingly gave up hope that we may reach a scientific consensus. They think that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is fated to be a matter of choice. We do not share this opinion. As scientists, we must seek a realist (pretty much as Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen famously defined ) and experimentally verifiable interpretation of the quantum world, even if this interpretation costs us some foundational stone like locality or means that we live in a universe where statistic independence is a conceptual impossibility. Zeh, who developed the early concepts of what would later be known as decoherence, considered the collapse a troublesome superfluous hypothesis: "Any deviation from the global Schrödinger equation must, in principle, lead to observable effects, and it should be recalled that none have ever been discovered." However, proposing ways and attempting to verify such effects are worth it. It may come the day we would have to bow to a realist but unverifiable hypothesis based on some relative state interpretation or admit that the wave function is a subjective construct. But we are not quite there yet. Experiments such as the cosmic Bell tests, the gradual formation of eigenstates, or those reconstructing wave function phases out of measurements show we still have much to learn. The Diósi-Penrose model also tells us that we have room for realist, testable theories of measurement. We hope our atomistic modes of the Diósi-Penrose will help in this endeavor.