I have to admit first off that I have not yet read the full piece (though I surely intend to), but I have to say that your examples strike me more as useful evolution of language rather than “garbage” language. Euphemisms and new words can be garbage, but they don’t have to be. Each of your examples is precise and has a clear meaning to a modern speaker, which gives them communicative value and makes them clearly non-garbage. Whereas when somebody asks me to “do a deep dive” on a subject because we really need to “dig in,” well, that tells me nothing. When a consultancy introduces its newest consultant as a “heavy hitter,” I learn nothing about the person (though if they tell me nothing else, I can infer that he/she has probably done nothing of note and is probably not, in fact, whatever “heavy hitter” is meant to convey).
I encountered all of these and more on at least a weekly basis when I was working a lot in Silicon Valley, and it was aggravating because it was rare that anybody was willing to get more specific than “dig in,” but after I dug in I was inevitably missing some of the specific things they wanted to see. I came to see it as a euphemism for “read my mind, and while you do that I’m going to go move some goalposts around.” I most definitely consider that “garbage language” because it utterly fails at the thing language is supposed to do best: communication.
There’s also a grey area (for me, at least) in the middle. For example, when somebody tells me that something is “baked in” to the numbers they’re presenting, I know exactly what they mean, but I still think they sound stupid.
