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 t

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.