Even the simplest, most straightforward licenses (like MIT) take care of that much.
Nobody would ever want liability for a project they donate to the world as open source.
people (usually with a limited engineering background) have a fantasy that they might start a hobby business, and are afraid someone will "steal" their design and sell a dozen on ebay
The attribution request is a "should", not a "must", and not part of the license.
Personally, I wouldn't interpret anything in the readme as binding conditions.
I did not say anything about attribution. GPL3 already requires attribution and is not a problem. Similarly my suggested CC-BY-SA includes BY.
I mean, not really -- it's mostly just a big disclaimer of liability, and the only time it uses the phrase "not permitted", it's also just amounts to another disclaimer of liability in that it's saying that it's "not permitted" to use the product without assuming full responsibility for the associated risks.
It's really some form of CC-BY-SA-NC plus some more limits about "safety" which is impossible to define and prove or disprove and none of the creators business.
Basically it's almost untouchable until the terms are actually defined and made sensible.
Even the simple "only for hobby/personal/educational use" is internally inconsistent because education is itself a commercial activity.
Trying to say too much in the license is just wasting an exceptionally cool project. Just make it CC-BY-SA, add the warnings and disclaimers, and leave it at that. Only add the -NC if you want to sell them and be the only one allowed to sell them. If you aren't planning to sell them as an important part of your own livlihood, then don't add -NC, it doesn't make the world a better place.