And? I was talking to the op about their story... don't need a link to a worldcoin announcement, thanks.

This is an article about Worlcoin, Sam Altman's pet project, and OP is sharing an anecdote about Sam Altman. Not sure why you find this so confusing, but I'll be happy to walk you through it slowly.

It's not clear whether or not he talked to Sam Altman in his/her "pre-interview".

If I had a pre-interview for a job at Amazon, does that mean I have a Jeff Bezos story?

Well, more accurately, an anecdote about a previous Sam Altman project, which is pretty relevant when discussing a current Sam Altman project.

The story really had nothing to do with Sam Altman.

"I have a pre-interview story..."

If someone had an anecdote about, say, interviewing at one of Elon Musk's earliest ventures, that's an Elon Musk story, especially if it tells you how the company is run.

I'd call that a story about interviewing at a venture that Elon Musk started. I certainly wouldn't call that a story about Elon Musk.

Let's be real here, this was a rather poor attempt at name dropping Sam. It also had nothing to do with Sam.

It also had nothing to do with how the company was run, which they'd really know very little about, given that it was a pre-interview. They turned the offer to continue down due to the concept, not how it was run.

If the person had described sitting down at an interview with Sam and discussing the way the company was run, then I'd call that a Sam story about how the company was run.

Did I walk through this slowly enough for you?

Guy goes into interview with an early fly-by-night Sam Altman operation. Finds it dysfunctional as expected.

Reports it back to us as Sam Altman launches another fly-by-night operation.

Sorry, but it's a Sam Altman story.

"fly-by-night" and "as expected" are your own added bias. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is a story about a pre-interview, not a story about Sam.

It's a story about Sam.

And no, not by own bias, just an accurate reading of OP's story about his operation.

Sure. Whatever.

Thanks for agreeing. :-)

No, that's now how most will people interpret that statement.

I'm guessing you didn't canvas a vote on that, so I'm assuming your source might have been certain posterior regions?