I disagree with your reading of the article. It does not say that providing status updates in 1:1s are the "worst possible use of time" anywhere.

Quoted from the article: "The point of this discussion is not to solve my Disaster, the point is that we’re going to have a conversation where one of us is going to learn something more than just project status."

Status updates are a conducive part of 1:1s and its the perfect time to get unblocked as the quote above duly points out.

As for learning about whether "feature A will collide with feature B", weekly/biweekly roundtables are the perfect time to learn about such things. The weekly cadence allows people to find time to collaborate on the possible overlap.

Lastly, I don't think the article is even that good. It seems to make up for its lack of interesting-ness by feigning conviction and edginess. The central point of the article is highly unusual in that it lauds novelty over pragmatism.

A 1:1 should be an environment where all of what the article talks about CAN take place. But that doesn't mean it SHOULD during every meeting.

Does your team communicate outside of the stand-up?

I usually know what everyone is working on (because of ticket assignments, code reviews, some occasional side meeting, etc), as I usually work with teams of 5 (or less) people.