The title is "Don't do interviews, do discussions". That's repeated in the main text. The author seems to be concerned about the feeling of "I am being evaluated". I think that's counterproductive because it's false - being evaluatated is the whole point of the conversation and it's better if both sides were honest about it instead of lying to each other and playing games.

In context, I take it to mean "don't do the normal format of interviewing, use discussions". No amount of phrasing is going to convince you that you aren't sitting in an interview. I wouldn't want to convince you you're not in an interview anyway, that seems pretty dishonest. There's just way more value in having a (albeit can be fairly technical) discussion rather than typical call/response style of interview that consists pretty much solely of "did you memorize what I'm looking for". Particularly because I don't expect the person I'm interviewing to be a master of everything, having a discussion can lead to some common ground where we can go in deep on some of your actual previous experience.

"Interview" is ambiguous here. No matter what you do, it's always true that you're interviewing the candidate in the "assessing a candidate" sense, but you don't have to do this by interviewing them in the sense of "question and answer format you'd see a journalist use".

The tone of an evaluation can change the experience and isn’t boolean.

Which is another way of saying "life isn't boolean" honestly.