Its not “bypassing” if you have to write the code used to setup the timer to do it.<p>I suppose it implies the existence of a class of potential problems if an application (1) accepts user input for timer delays, (2) requires a certain minimum delay, (3) only checks that the entered amount is >= the minimum without considering overflow behavior. But, since this behavior is well-documented (the MDN page on setTimeout covers it), it doesn't seem like any kind of notable discovery.
this is no different than passing 0 right? I fail to see the significance, other than the fact that infinity doesn't work the way you think it would.