I have never tried to conceal the fact that the authors use the word settlement. On the contrary, I provided the reference openly. The disagreement is not about the presence of that word, but about what this very broad term means in this particular context and what conclusions can legitimately be drawn from it. The Cambridge Dictionary, for example, defines settlement simply as "a place where people come to live or the process of settling in such a place". Nothing in that definition necessarily requires several independent households, a cluster of houses, or anything resembling a village. A large isolated farm or estate can therefore constitute a settlement in its own right, even if it contains only one principal residential building. It may also include barns, stables and other agricultural structures, but those additional buildings are not what makes it a settlement. The essential point is that it is a distinct place where people have established themselves and live. This distinction matters because you repeatedly treat settlement as though it necessarily implied a collective residential community larger than a farmstead. It does not. A farmstead, an agricultural estate, a dependent holding, a hamlet and a village can all be described as settlements. The word itself does not tell us how many households were present, whether the buildings were nucleated or dispersed, or whether the site constituted an independent community. In this book, I understand settlement primarily in the sense of a newly established farmstead, agricultural estate or dependent rural holding, rather than as an unambiguous synonym for 'village'. This reading is not arbitrary. From the beginning, the authors emphasize the agricultural context of the word and repeatedly connect thorps with farms, estates, cultivated land, soil types and changes in agricultural organization. Their study is not simply an attempt to prove that thorp meant 'village'. It investigates what distinguished these particular rural establishments from places bearing other habitative name elements. The authors explicitly challenge the standard explanation that thorps were merely small villages attached to more important places. Their argument is that this conventional label does not adequately explain what made these places distinctive. They instead examine their subsidiary status, their relationship with older centres, their position in the landscape and their role in the reorganization of arable farming. In other words, their principal concern is not whether a thorp had crossed some demographic threshold separating a farm from a hamlet or a village. Their concern is the specific economic, territorial and agricultural function that justified the use of the name. Their archaeological evidence admittedly shows that some thorps eventually developed into nucleated settlements with several holdings, regular plots or dependent tenants. I have never denied that. But this does not establish that 'village' was the original lexical meaning of the word. It shows what some places bearing that name became during a period of major agricultural and social reorganization. That chronological distinction is essential. A newly founded farmstead or dependent agricultural establishment can attract additional households and gradually become a hamlet or village while retaining its original name. Place names regularly survive major transformations in the size, structure and function of the places they designate. The fact that a medieval or modern thorp was later a village does not prove that the name originally denoted a village when it was coined. Indeed, the authors note that thorp and throp names can point today to villages, hamlets or individual farms. That diversity is exactly what we would expect if the term had been applied to a type of rural establishment whose later development varied from one site to another. Some remained farms, some disappeared, and some developed into larger and more nucleated communities. The later outcomes cannot simply be projected backwards and turned into the original definition. It is also important that the authors situate the creation of these names within changes in agricultural organization and the process of village nucleation. That wording implies a historical development, not an original equivalence between thorp and 'village'. If thorps participated in or contributed to a process of nucleation, it does not follow that they were already fully developed nucleated villages at the beginning of that process. Nor do the authors simply reproduce the conventional model of thorps as dependent hamlets. They explicitly ask us to move beyond that characterization and investigate the particular features that made them distinctive. The official description of the book even states that, rather than dismissing them as 'secondary settlements' or dependent hamlets, we should examine their specific characteristics and their role in transforming farming practices. This is much closer to a functional and agricultural interpretation than to your claim that the authors straightforwardly support 'village' as the original meaning. I am therefore not arguing that settlement can only mean 'farmstead', nor am I claiming that every historical thorp consisted of one household. My argument is that settlement is far too broad to substantiate your interpretation. If þurpą is glossed as settlement, that remains compatible with a farmstead, an agricultural estate, a dependent rural establishment, a hamlet or a village. The word 'settlement' alone cannot tell us which of these was the original referent. The authors' overall position appears considerably more nuanced than the one you attribute to them. They treat thorps as relatively small rural establishments, often new or subsidiary, closely connected with cultivated land and the reorganization of arable agriculture. Some developed into compact communities with several holdings, while others remained individual farms or disappeared. Their later, broader use as a designation for small rural settlements should not automatically be projected back onto the earlier stages. In short, both the book and the article do not establish that thorp originally meant 'village'. It suggests that thorps were distinctive rural establishments whose agricultural role, dependent status and development contributed to the long process by which parts of the English countryside became more nucleated. The village is therefore better understood as one possible outcome of that development, not as the only meaning already contained in the word from the beginning. The use of settlement consequently does not contradict my interpretation. It encompasses it. If you want to demonstrate that the term originally referred specifically to a collective settlement composed of several independent households, rather than to a farmstead, estate or dependent agricultural establishment that could later develop into such a community, you need evidence beyond the English word settlement. The source you cite does not, by itself, establish that conclusion. This also offers a different explanation for the earlier association of thorp with tuun. The two words did not need to be exact synonyms. Glossaries frequently group words because their referents overlap, not because their meanings are identical. A tuun could be an enclosed holding, and a thorp could be a rural establishment occupying such a holding. Their equivalence in one gloss may therefore reflect a shared physical or functional feature rather than a shared meaning of 'village'. I nevertheless think that the equivalences found in these glossaries follow a coherent semantic logic, as the authors themselves suggest. In my view, the association between competum, tuun, thorp and þingstow may rest on the shared notion of a physically delimited rural area, used for cultivation, habitation, landholding or local assembly. These words need not have been exact synonyms. They may simply have described different aspects or functions of the same kind of agricultural site. I hope this lengthy explanation helps you better understand my position and my perception of the literature on the topic.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/anthropic-confirms-new-claude-code-limits-to-prevent-game-cloning-users-report-opus-5-5-is-also-actively-blocking-reverse-engineering-tasks  

I saw that Anthropic had taken measures. But many are using previous versions like 4.8 or open-source AI agents like Ollanta.

Fascinating subject! It works for simpler projects already (see "my" implementations  of mercator and post-atlas elswhere in this forum, using Anthropic Claude for SW development while I do the specification and testing). I can tell from this experience that the software development itself is certainly the largest part, but specifying the tool and its GUI and  testing also requires quite some effort. Thus, if you reverse engineer an existing tool with an already existing GUI and CONOPS/user logic, this could work well.