I've only experienced it as described in the article, with a person as the limerent object. The limerent state is sustained by uncertainty, the small and tantalizing chance it could work out the way you want and the undeniable chance it could fail. One way out of the situation is to make success impossible (say, by a breakup) and therefore reach certainty of the outcome. This is of course the last thing most people would do, but to end what feels like permanent madness, you take that deal.
I think if this article really described you, you would stop dead in your tracks reading it. There is what the general public casually calls OCD and intrusive thoughts, and then there are many horrifying flavors of the real deal.
I've been working 15+ years as a UX developer, with varying results. From my experience, the best way to get developers and designers to work well together is to have frequent short demos/reviews (ideally weekly). That has helped solve random problems like:
1. This user flow does not match backend reality, let me explain why.
2. How does this screen design handle XYZ usage?
3. I cannot export this asset from figma, please share.
4. Would you mind verifying that the fonts/colors/spacing look okay?
5. Are you sure about not reusing an existing icon from our library?
6. How should we handle error and loading states?
7. How important is this design feature? It'll take me a while to build it.
8. Did you expect this desktop layout to be full width or 1600px?
9. Can you give me an overview of what changed since the last design version?
10. This is how I implemented the design. Is that correct?
Thanks for these insights. I think this is a great approach. The question is, how to best facilitate these short/demo reviews without creating too many context-switches and interruptions for everyone. We're actually working on a platform that tries to solve this (https://livecycle.io/) by generating instant, collaborative PR preview environments. So the kinds of reviews you describe can happen async and in context.
Do you think this approach would work to facilitate the reviews you outline here?
This. Your process also highlights that developers and designers working together is a process that is interlinked and takes time.
Another comment highlights that designers work often without the full picture. I'd add to this they are responsible for bringing solutions to the table as the catalyst to collaboration, exploring compromise and iteration. The best engineers bring solutions to the table too. The worst is when the developers and the designer are bullshitting each other on why things aren't possible with reason from their own domain that the others don't understand or can't reason about.
Highly recommend Brian's Tacklebox program. It helped me create a framework for validating my product idea, while gaining the skills (and confidence) for running customer interviews, landing page tests, mapping markets, etc.
Obviously, you still need to put in the work to reach out to potential users. But the program helps you approach it in a structured format.
I did this back in 2014 with my wife-to-be. We traveled through Ireland, England, France, Spain & India.
In order to stretch our travel funds, we took local transport, stayed in hostels and campsites, and ate street food. Somewhat proud of the fact that we lived + traveled on $30-$90/day for more than a year.
For me, the best part was taking the same buses and trains as the locals. It gives you a glimpse into their everyday routine and also makes it easier to start a conversation.
Coming back and restarting income took a while though. Mainly because of personal preferences on the kind of work... ultimately just ended up doing the same kind of work that I left (frontend development).
Thinking of doing it again this year, but too scared to abandon income yet again. Might just try remote work this time.
Strange how "broadband" and "high speed internet" can have a different meaning in various parts of the country. For ex: a 10 mbps dsl line is considered "high speed" in New Hampshire.
The article addresses the issues of multiple agencies with multiple definitions of broadband, specifically mentioning that the Dept of Agriculture has a definition of 10/1.
As others in this discussion have pointed out, Sun intended this because they wanted people to see Java as the server side language so even though applets could run Java in the browser they never did much to improve performance because they expected people to rely on JavaScript in the browser (and buy their expensive servers to run Java).
I've noticed strong feelings of obsession towards an idea/goal, particularly when it's not achievable.