I say it is intellectually dishonest because it reads to me as a clear attempt to make the number appear more impressive.
Borrowing from Wikipedia, "intellectual honesty":
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions
It would still be accurate to say it was a $3,200,000,000.000,000,000,000 valuation, but I hope you will agree this is misrepresenting information.Right?
There's a reason people don't use Prolog...
Arguing that somebody shouldn't expand a large number because you personally now perceive this number differently and therefore it is intellectually dishonest is a bit of a squirrely argument, don't you think?
We're all capable thinking humans here. That isn't to say that smart people cannot be swayed with rhetoric and such, but don't you think that the same argument you're making here could be made against compressing such large numbers? Maybe expanding that number isn't so much exaggerating its value as it is simply impressing upon us its true enormity.
$3.2B ($3,200,000,000.00) is a lot of fucking money, after all. For anybody.
I think about the Flip Video -- a reasonably-priced, small video recorder that could capture up to 2 hours of HD video. It was purchased by Cisco in 2009, and the product line was killed 23 months later. This was before a large number of consumers had quality smartphone cameras.
Google had a good reason to drop $3.2B on Nest. Providing useful products that consumers love is not it.