I think Clementine was my favorite, for it showed not just his imagination and humor, but his skill.

That would be an interesting law to pass: You can only publish a WARN list if the CEO is on it....

Translation, I want a $.25 bump in my stock options to pay for my wife's haircuts, so you need to lose your job.

It's a hard answer. By stating "You will categorically not be paid if you try to ransom us", you're cutting out the part of organised crime that does stuff for a profit. There will be no profit in attacking a hospital. They will not pay, and you'll take an awful lot of heat for no return (and potentially be liable for any deaths that occur if they eventually catch you, increasing the sentence that's meted out to you).

However, there is still the vulnerability to politically motivated attacks, so safety still isn't assured, it just demotivates regular organised crime that just wants to make lots of money.

Having backups, and having tested backups is pretty much what everyone has.
The critical thing that people are finding is the metric to follow with Ransomware attacks is the Recovery Time for the entire estate. Not one system, but potentially hundreds of interlinked systems that all fail catastrophically at once.
That can take weeks of forensics to work out what's happened (and needs to be done before you can make an effective recovery, otherwise you may find you're back at still being compromised and ransom attacked within minutes of being back online). Then it can take weeks or months to recover and sync all the systems affected.

All the while, your primary business (in hospitals, for example, keeping people alive) is in measures that most likely can't handle the load long term with paper based recording and tracking. They certainly will have difficulty managing planned appointments and making new ones, which is why many business continuity plans have a time scale by which a given system needs to be recovered, or else things go south quickly after that period.

I've read so many people saying "should have had backups", but nobody has considered the time to rebuild from catastrophic failure. Every system and server is down, full restore and recovery to a time before infection (and validation of that).
The company was a transport company with 500 trucks on the road. That's a lot of logistics in play that need to have continuity, each one with cost of probably tens of thousands a day, or more, with heavy non-complete penalties for failure.
Full catastrophic failure can take weeks, or months to perform. In this time, you've haemorrhaged customers, who have had to try and make alternate arrangements where they can (and will likely not be back), no ability to schedule new business, and bills that still need to be paid.

The cash flow can easily drive a low margin business like transport into failure just by the time to recover from a complete loss of function by malicious infection. All the backups may be there, they may even have off site, and have done everything by the book, just the operating company as an entity could easily lose more in the recovery time window than it was possible to financially recover from.

The law is unconstitutional, as other similar laws have been found in the past. It hasn't been removed from the books only because nobody has been charged for it in a century, thus nobody has had a chance to challenge it on those grounds. The exception is for the military, which has the UMC which is allowed to have stricter restrictions on behavior.

YEah, none of this will happen. Let's assume they don't have a prenup (in which case the settlement of assets is dictated by that). The wife would get 50% of what was generated during their marriage at best. That may include the house, but its value would be subtracted from what she got in cash. Alimony... depends on a lot of circumstances, but it's more rare and generally a limited time. Plus we have no idea what the wife's income is, she may make as much or more.

Will he get a job again? Of course he will. Probably not as a CEO in the near term, but he'll absolutely get jobs where he isn't a visible presence for the company. And in a few years the CEO jobs will open again, because nobody is going to give a fuck a year from now.

As for going to jail- no. If the alimony (which is unlikely to exist) does exist and it is set high, he goes back to court to get it lowered. Because alimony is based on your income (with a few exceptions for example purposefully staying unemployed). Given that he was just publicly fired, his current income potential is very low, so any alimony would be matchingly low. There are formulas for these things.

So in other words, your just spouting misogynistic bullshit.