Hacker News Reader

Wouldn’t the foremost thought of the “green” building being the one that is the most sustainable uses the least energy and water in its running.

Not that this adds that much, but it’s a very weird omission.

View on HN

The author says the first example is slightly incorrect because the Green (a name) and green (a color) have a very different meaning. The example that follows is using the physical color of the building and the conceptual color of the building in some color coded system, which in both cases are arguably colors.

I think the author would probably consider 'green energy' to also be a 'slightly incorrect' example because it doesn't actually refer to the color green. I guess it would be correct if the antonym of green energy were also named after a color.

One of the more confusing examples of this I've encountered was a manufacturer describing a material with improved eco-friendliness over a prior version as "dark green"... taking the color metaphor perhaps a bit too seriously. (For what it's worth, the material happened to be black in color.)

Why a weird omission? If you're trying to find a building, the color or the name would both be helpful, while a description of some internal, invisible aspect of the building would not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com