Natural gas power plants are one of the most efficient and clean in terms of COP.

It was mentioned in the post. Doesn’t seem to be in apt.

SPF50 means that only 1⁄50 of total UV light gets to your skin. If the SPF50 factor for a narrow light wavelength was tested under a 20 μm layer of sunscreen, and you’ll manage to apply a 40 μm layer, the resulting UV light would be 100%÷50÷50=0.04%, corresponding to SPF2500 for this wavelength.

Of course, SPF is not measured for one particular wavelength. UV light is a spectrum of sunlight of wavelengths starting at 100 nm to 400 nm. UV radiation of shorter wavelengths contains more energy, but is easier to stop; it usually responsible for short-term damage like sunburns. For longer waves it’s vice versa, they are less powerful and won’t cause a burn, but are harder to stop and penetrate skin deeper and cause cancer and premature aging.

Low-SPF sunscreens are usually achieving their index thanks to stopping easy-to-catch short waves that are most of UV exposure in pure joules, and are having a hard time stopping long-wave UV due to their chemical composition. For further reading I recommend a 2019 article “Critical Wavelength and Broad-Spectrum UV Protection”, Google it, I’m cautious to paste a link in case anti-spam bots are tightly configured here.

SPF is overall not a very good and all-encompassing sunscreen quality indicator. I recommend looking into UVA-centered indexes: CW (over 370 is good, in EU these are marked with UVA circled mark), UVAPF or PPD (over 15 is decent, that’s same system as SPF but for UVA, longer waves) or, common on asian brands, PA++… index (UVAPF=2^x, where x is the amount of “+” symbols after PA).

Thanks, seems it worked. It should be noted that /dev/ over normal /run/media/ path can be found with lsblk command, out of 2 with identical letter use latter with digit

Usually it’s slide to type

Search Assist found the correct resource immediately.

CC-BY-SA does neither prevent, say, a BlendSwap (where there are CC-licensed and even CC0/PD models made by artists for artists, but also an exclusionary “Plans” page) from charging users for downloading a model meant to be gratis, nor prevent them from omitting external links to the artist’s own sources where anyone could get it for truly free.

It does require attribution though. You can request a link to be a part of attribution. CC BY-SA license, §3.a.1.A:

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

1. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

   I. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
   II. a copyright notice;
   <…>
   V. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

I highly recommend reading both licenses in full before considering applying them to your work.

The first case, for me, would be okay if said blog weren’t to exclude other people from accessing because they can’t afford paying for access

If you post an NC-derivative work on YouTube or a similar blogging site, and the platform has ads or sponsorships, and the creator gets a cut of ad revenue via a monetisation program (55% on YouTube), you are violating terms of the variant. I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that even if you are not in the monetisation program you still can’t post BY-NC-… derivative works on YouTube per their terms of service because if YouTube would make even a cent from a video or a post with it they would violate this license.

The second case, definitely a no-no

Well, physical items can’t all be free as they require limited materials to craft (wood, fabric…) and, unlike digital goods, can’t be duplicated indefinitely. Nonetheless, BY-SA would allow everyone to make a copy of the product as close as they would like with their own materials, using monetary investment one entrepreneur poured in to everyone’s most benefit.

I’m not aware of a license, a fortiori a decenly popular one, that would permit ubiquitous monetisation and forbid selling of a derivative work in any form.

You seem to have a very uncommon system of religious/spiritual beliefs I, as most people, are not really aware about. You probably should have prefaced your post with explanation of who is “Her”, ”Her principles”, how channeling of spiritual energy works and a link to description of ideas and/or dogmas behind this teaching in some neutral encyclopedia. We can only help you with concerns phrased in a way a secular person can understand.

Oh… you mean… CC-BY-NC-SA is yet to be tested legally, is it?

That’s not the main concern, legally they all seem to work. The problem is, a person cannot make one derivative work based on two works, one under BY-SA, one under BY-SA-NC, as these licenses are requiring different conditions for derivative works. And BY-SA has a significantly larger body of works already under it. Popularizing NC increases license fragmentation and harms future derivative interoperability. SA already protects sufficiently against most predatory copyright privatisation.

The list of commercial usages that NC theoretically prohibits includes, for example, collecting monetisation from a blog with this work posted or drawing it on a hand-made craft that would be sold in an indie shop.

An attribution requirement isn’t enough to enforce a share-alike clause, it has to be there from the beginning.

You can select Wikipedia’s CC BY-SA license that requires to keep derivative projects under CC BY-SA. I don’t think CC SA without BY exists, but you can partially waive attribution requirements yourself as Wikipedia does this.

Also, for “free as in grantis” there is CC BY-NC-SA that explicitly bans commercial use, but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA. A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party, but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” these works, so there’s little problem for the NC variant to solve.

BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”.

Based on Microsoft’s proprietary OOXML format and still makes you dependent on Microsoft’s will. LibreOffice better.