Personally I feel like I can think a little more clearly about almost everything after reading Peter’s latest reply, and I’m worried our spam could tax people who say these things. I recognize those laws from when people mentioned them more frequently, years ago. It’s nice to remember their opposites are not true. I am not a cryptographer, but it sounds like it makes ideal sense to encrypt thricely in layers: asymmetrically, lattice-based, and with rijndael-256, and such that none of the cryptosystems are securing the keys of the others. I call it “multiple locks rather than multiple doors”: combining algorithms in such a way that all must be broken to get through. I remember seeing an ssl break result from stacking algorithms with dependency rather than strength.