There is some misleading stuff in that article. To save time I made an article to provide my commentary:

* https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:tpp

Don't you think it's time to update it, given you start by saying that "If someone, while trying to sell you some high security mechanical system, told you that the system had remained unbreached for the last 20 years you would take that as a compelling argument"?

Because you're clearly presenting it as a defense of PGP on a thread from a presentation clearly delineating breaks in it using exactly the kind of complexity that the article you're responding to predicts would cause it to break.