The word former refers to state. It means that the person or object was something, but no longer is. The word "former" only refers to sequence in special cases where it is contrasted with the word "latter" (in which it means the first of two given items).
The word previous refers to sequence. It means that the person or object was/did something before something else took over or replaced it. As StoneyB rightly clarifies in his comment, "the previous" means the directly preceding member in a series, however "a previous" can refer to any earlier member in the series.
The word last, in this context, means the same as "previous", but is only used to refer to the immediately preceding item. (Jay warns that "last" can be ambiguous as it is also used to refer to the final entry in a series.)
Thus, you can say "former coworker" of someone who is no longer a coworker. However, the word "previous" means the one before the current, so saying "previous coworker" or "last coworker" does not make sense unless you had a coworker and they were replaced.
Referring to TV series, you can say that you preferred the "previous" or "last" show, and this would refer to the show immediately preceding the current show. You cannot say the "former" show in this context.
When referring to a show that aired earlier than the immediate previous, you can say "a previous show". Otherwise, you can be more specific. Depending on the circumstances, you might say "the first show", or "one of the earlier shows", or "episode ten", or simply "one of the older shows". You could even say something like "five episodes earlier".
The preposition within has nothing to do with the ordinary sense of the preposition with = “accompanying, alongside, by means of, etc.”. Within means “inside” in spatial, temporal and figurative senses.
The hoard was discovered deep within the mound.
You must respond to this communication within thirty days.
They are within their rights in refusing to be interviewed.
Consequently, within is not a valid translation of German in in this context. However, English does support both German uses: you may use either with for mit or in for in.
With this option ...
In this option ...
HISTORICAL NOTE, for those who wonder why the compound with + in has this meaning:
Old English wið (cognate with German wider) originally meant “against, by, back from”, and the modern sense of with was expressed by mid (cognate with German mit). In the later part of the Old English period, however, northeast England was occupied and to some extent settled by speakers of Old Norse dialects, and over the next centuries (down into the Middle English period) many Old Norse words replaced the corresponding Old English words. For instance, they and are are of ON origin. Old Norse við, a cognate of with and wider, had approximately the sense of mid and mit, and under its influence, with shifted to the modern sense. However, the old sense lingered in established compounds such as withstand (stand against), withhold (hold from), withdraw (draw away from)—and within (against or by the inside).
Best Answer
This question has been answered multiple times on ELL but I think I may have found a very simple answer:
(1) I have worked at/for this company before; [would be said in a present time and merely informs us that this is a past event, that is true when you are speaking,but does not provide a time such as last year.]
(2) I had worked at/for this company before. [would be said in the present time about something which occurred before something else in the past.]
I had worked at XYZ company before, after I worked at ABC company.
worked = in the past
had worked = before that. It precedes the simple past activity.
Your choice will depend on your overall context and what you wish to emphasize or say. It is not a grammar issue since both are fine.