Yeah...I am sure that the FAA certifies jets so that they can brake effectively at gross, from V1, all day long, year after year, but if you go over 5-10 kts...everyone is a goner....
What exactly is your point, here?
Brake effectively at gross what? Are you saying that a fully loaded airplane can do maximum braking "all day long?" If so, you're absolutely clueless on the subject. Particularly with respect to a rejected takeoff.
This subject has been discussed at great length, and use of the search engine may educate you more than attemtping to set straight your misguided ideas. If you can take the approach you do, you can only do it from a standpoint of utter ignorance of the dynamics involved in a rejected takeoff, as well as complete ignorance of takeoff dynamics and performance calculation.
The braking effectiveness isn't the issue with respect to rejecting a takeoff after V1. Having insufficient runway is certainly an issue.
Boeing is shining everyone on, you say? Shining everyone on with accurate, proven data? Shining everyone on by performing to Part 25 certification standards? Shining everyone on by enabling crews to calculate the performance for their takeoff on a given day, with a given payload, a given fuel load, a given set of ambient, environmental conditions? Really?
When we calculate our takeoff data, we do so given real world conditions, and real world aircraft performance. We know what the aircraft can, and can't do. What it can do is perform a rejected takeoff, at the hands of the crew, prior to V1. What it cannot do is safely allow the crew to perform a rejected takeoff after V1. Insufficient runway remains.
Apparently you don't understand this.
We have a major advantage continuing and coming back to land, rather than rejecting. When rejecting, all the runway is behind us. When coming back to land, it's all out in front. In case you weren't aware, that's a good thing.