I realize the circumstances of the world have somewhat changed over the past several months, but its not implausible that the US President might travel.
So...I generally agree with the idea that it is more useful to have two terms that mean something distinct than two terms that both mean a fuzzy version of the same thing. In that, despite linguistic history, or the common parlance of whatever time or place, I think "literally" is useful as a concept that should disallow it from use as a term for exaggeration. Because sometimes context does not expose "I am literally going to kill you"'s meaning, and it is useful to know if that's literal or not.
However, I think the situation you might find here is that, if you define "bricked" as a situation which is literally unrepairable, almost nothing is ever bricked. Which similarly makes it a not very useful term. Bricking would be a term exclusive to devices which have been...exposed to an intense EMP, or run through an oven. Situations which, while they may occasionally happen, happen so rarely that no one would ever use the word.
Everything needs to be thought of in the context of the person thinking it.
Some kids are naturally reckless and should be told to always look both ways when crossing the street, and to stop and think and make sure. Some kids are naturally anxious and would have always looked both ways because they knew there were cars and cars are scary, so telling them how scared they should be is going to make navigating a city like a normal person will be an exercise in fear.
If you're depressed and you have no good reason to be as depressed as you are, then the way you feel is going to be something you feel bad about and it shouldn't be. You didn't cause it or bring it on yourself. You didn't make a bad choice.
On the other hand, neither are you powerless in the course of your life, and if your natural inclination is feeling helpless rather than guilty, it's not helpful to think about it as though your feelings are just this unstoppable force rolling over you.
I think general advice just doesn't work very well. Everyone is the combination of decades of context. Some of it needs to be taken into account.
> But, now imagine two black holes each a billion times as massive as the sun turning all their mass into energy in a couple of seconds.
Sure, lemme just take off my "good at socializing with apes and running for long periods of time after antelope" hat and put on my "Cosmological scale" hat.
Huh, I seem to have misplaced that one. And the one I'm currently wearing is oddly well affixed.
You haven't listed all the possible options for obtaining a monopoly, though, including the one Microsoft was convicted of. In addition to creating a better product and by controlling the government, you can also engage in tying, whereby you have a monopoly (perhaps rightfully gained through innovation) and use it to gain a monopoly in another area by forcing customers to buy both together, you can sell at a loss until your competitors go out of business and then raise the price, you can collude with other companies to fix prices, or to only service certain areas or sectors.
Having a monopoly is not illegal, exploiting your position as a monopoly to maintain it is. That is what Microsoft did.
