It's fascinating to read all the top comments from people who didn't know the implication. I would guess that you and others assumed from context that it means "fragile." It's a reasonable assumption, and if enough people use it to mean that, then that will be a new meaning of the word.

Language evolves, so it isn't fair to say that you or they are "wrong," but it belies the problem with using metaphors in communication. If the listener doesn't understand the metaphor, they're more likely to fill in their own guess than they are to ask for clarification or look it up. And that's not a flaw, that's actually a fantastic adaptation that makes language possible in the first place. How many words did you learn from the dictionary, compared to how many you learned from reading or hearing them used?

Take the name "Nimrod." Nimrod was a Biblical character known to be a great hunter. It has frequently been used sarcastically to impugn the hunting skills of the target, most famously by Daffy Duck to describe Elmer Fudd, and then again by Bugs Bunny to describe Yosemite Sam. But most of the people watching the cartoons weren't Biblical scholars, and the word entered the public consciousness as a generic insult which has come to mean a stupid person.

The term for the phenomenon is "semantic drift." See also: peruse, awful, nice, and the currently-relevant "weird."