I was just trying to be considerate to the most recent and arguably quintessential use of the phrase, with regards to ground zero and 9/11. The point I was aim

I was just trying to be considerate to the most recent and arguably quintessential use of the phrase, with regards to ground zero and 9/11. The point I was aiming at was the general semantic meaning of the phrase. It seemed mismatched from the meaning intended by the sentence. With startups, there are various phrases, like "get in on the ground floor/level" or "build it from the ground up" where the full semantic metaphorical meaning of the phrase maps to the meaning intended. If you said you wanted to get in at ground zero, there's a semantic mismatch, so the meaning doesn't fully apply in the context in which it's used. I don't think it's necessarily controversial, either. Comedians use the term "bombing" for performances gone bad. If a night went particularly bad, they could call it a holocaust. They also refer to "murdering" a crowd, when sets go really well - "my bit last night was a nuclear holocaust" might work to convey great success. I gauge the level of correctness to the various levels of meaning and metaphor, so if multiple levels don't track, or if a singular level is mismatched to the context, then I don't consider it as a very correct use of the word or phrase. It's not totally wrong, but of the many ways in which that phrase is used correctly, it's not very right, either. Anyway - My mistake for highlighting an admittedly minor issue among language model enthusiasts. We seem to enjoy delving into language's technicalities, and LLMs are great for exploring how meanings align with a sentence's intended message. I get caught up in these things easily.