"Literally" to mean "figuratively."
That's true but you have to understand that all superlatives are eventually abused, e.g. "really" now means very/much in many situations, "epic" is getting abused too, etc. Language evolves with time.
Well of course it does, or I'd have included my diatribe about "hopefully" (now used as "I hope" instead of as "in a hopeful manner," e.g., "hopefully, I'll win the Powerball," instead of "she walked hopefully to buy a lottery ticket"), or "impact" as a verb in sentences not involving meteorites or wisdom teeth. And none of the "new" phrases people have mentioned here bug me much, other than when they are overused (my DD now uses "yeet" as an all-purpose word -- I thought it was just an exclamation, but, no, now it's "man, she really yeeted that turn!" and the like).
What I object to are changes that obfuscate instead of clarify. A word or phrase should not "evolve" to mean precisely the
opposite of what it was originally meant to. Language is designed to express thoughts and feelings and ideas. And when you can't find the right word to describe your thoughts or feelings, then go ahead, coin a new one -- I think that's pretty cool (not surprisingly, my favorite kids' author is Dr. Seuss). But when you redefine a word to include its opposite, then you just confuse your audience, who has to stop and think and process which meaning is intended. And that bothers me. That's the realm of politicians and corporate consultants, not something normal people should aspire to. And so that's where I draw the line -- where I think we should appropriately rage, rage against the dying of the light, instead of just saying, "meh, language changes."