{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0199764982373678, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004700352526439483, 'mean_word_length': 5.402255639097745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Smearing time: Critical temporality and corporate ontology

Since 1972 a leap second has been introduced into global time standardization systems, due to the discrepancy between Coordinated Universal Time and International Atomic Time. Until recently, the leap second has been a consensual, if mildly uncanny adjustment, a para-governmental temporal wobble. Google's explanation of its actions with regard to the insertion of a leap second smeared into its Network Time Protocol servers is couched in terms of a period extending initially over 20 h, ultimately reaching 24 h. Google is intent on taking ownership of the smear and transducing it into a technologically stabilised change. Although there are a number of different strategies of smearing time, Google advocates for its standard smear that it wants other digital giants like Bloomberg, Amazon and Microsoft to replicate. In this paper we first analyze Google's temporal strategy in terms of its affinities and departures from the classical view of time in Aristotle's core considerations in the Physics Book IV, in terms of a consonant enumeration but in our example at variable speeds/intervals, and then in terms of Wolfgang Ernst's conception of time-critical media. Leap seconds conform to Ernst's sense of kairotic time, an auspicious micro-moment that is both techno-mathematically pre-defined and decisive for ensuring operationality. Google executes smeared time-critical processes but wants to establish mastery over the measurement and manipulation of humanly imperceptible microtemporal events by inhabiting temporal ontology itself, proposing its practice, based on misleading its servers, as a model for other digital hegemons.