I’m going to assume you’re not kidding, in which case, no, I mean the first letter of the command name it was called by.
There are already commands that do this. For example, on my machine, ex is the head of a symlink chain that leads to the vim text editor’s executable and if I run ex, vim will know that it was started with the name ex and will start in ex mode. ex was an editor that worked in a different way but was vim’s ancestor, so backwards compatibility is built right in for those strange people who love ex, (or have some kind of automation reliance on it being present).
Usually, the main command has a command line option that achieves the same effect as the special name. Here, vim -e is the less clever way to start vim in ex mode.
For yes, symlinking the name no to it and then calling that should arguably cause it to print n repeatedly, but it doesn’t, for historical reasons, hence my suggestion to go back in time and make it act differently.
(None of this touches on the fact that the GNU philosophy wants nothing to do with clever tricks like this. They prefer to compile separate executables for each and every use case. For example, most Linuxes have dir and vdir as variants of the ls command. Their functionality could have been implemented through this symlink trick, but instead there are three near-identical executables taking up space instead.)





Heck, if I invited people over and told them I was going to cook them a meal, their heads might explode. The “what” would be entirely incidental.
But it would probably be a Sunday dinner. Beef, pork or lamb.
And I’d probably have to borrow someone else’s house for it or set up a tent in the back yard because there’s barely room to swing a cat in here.