As a developer I've found stand-ups to be useful to know what's going on within the team and if feature A with collide with feature B.
[1] https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
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.
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.