Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1.
And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.
Language changes, and as speakers of modern English, we should adapt to changes instead of tilting at that particular windmill. However, I commiserate with you over the transformation of a useful word into yet another synonym for "really".
It's not quite as bad as you think, literally is usually used figuratively in "A is literally B" to indicate that while A is obviously not literally B, the outcome that A will have will be practically the same as that from B.
"Sad" used to mean "sated". Why are you spreading the incorrect usage perpetuated by fools in the 1690s? These days nobody understands me when I use the true definition.
It's one thing when a word evolves. It's another thing entirely when the evolution is the opposite of the original meaning. So let's not get condescending when it's more than a simple shift in meaning, okay?
Also, "sad" and "sated" aren't quite opposites but they're very different. Are you telling me you wouldn't be annoyed if people started talking about how sad they were at the end of a great meal?
And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.