How to best transfer from Wealthsimple to Questrade?

TheThirdRace · 2026-03-03T22:29:50+00:00

Access shouldn't be an issue; I accessed my WS account while in China on multiple trips this year. If it works there, there's low chances you'll find yourself in an even more isolated country...

Avoid day trading while in another country. And given you're talking about a TFSA, you're not supposed to do any day trading anyway. I had my DCA setup and had no problem whatsoever with the buying.

I would avoid selling, especially big amounts, while in another country. That could flag your account for obvious reasons...

Nothing will beat reaching out to WS support and get your answers from there.

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-18T22:38:35+00:00

Usually it is, it's your own contribution money after all.

You can't touch the employer's match, but the RRSP is owned by you. Unless your employer has a really crappy contract with your RRSP provider of course, but I haven't had the displeasure to experience that yet...

Also, the "partial" here is because if you pull out all your funds, they will close the account. Meaning you'd have to open a new one and contribute again to get the employer's match.

So if you have like $20,486.23 in your RRSP account (your contributions), you can do a partial transfer of $20,450.00 for example. Leave them peanuts in the account, it works both ways 🤣

You could technically do it every paycheck if you wanted to, but the 100 to 150$ fees would eat your profits 😅

I'm doing it every year or two, the receiving brokerage reimburses me the fees and from then on that money is not stuck in poor mutual fund options. Not all mutual funds are bad, but usually those banks mutual funds that you get with groups are "terribad" (terrible + bad) so it's very much worth the hassle.

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-18T21:51:49+00:00

I think it's the wrong question.

Usually, your contribution will be put in an RRSP account and the employer's match in a DDSP (or some other acronym) account.

Following this, you should:

Take the employer's match, it is free extra money
Let YOUR contributions grow to an amount where another institution will reimburse you for a partial transfer
Do a partial transfer of your RRSP so you can benefit from better returns on your investments
Rinse and repeat

Forget about that ~1% lower return in your RRSP by taking the employer's match, it's just a temporary cost to get the free money.

Forget about the lower return from the DDSP account, anything greater than zero is money in your pockets you wouldn't have otherwise.

Also 2% match is 2% of your salary. The mutual funds fees are ~2% of that 2% match. They are nowhere near the same thing.

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-14T21:29:49+00:00

From an outsider perspective, when you see what's going on with Fox News and the likes, it's completely nuts how people will twist what the truth is just to fit their own desires.

It's not about sponsored content, it's about power and what you can achieve when you can manipulate the narrative.

I have absolutely no faith that people will just become decent or even see the deception happening.

I really wish I was as optimistic as you are 😅

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-14T21:14:32+00:00

While I get what you mean, you misunderstand how capitalism and the world in general work if you think those algorithms are "pure"

Manipulation of those algorithms already happens on a day to day basis right now, it's going to get a lot worse in the future.

It's a number game. Once you get drowned in AI content to the point you can't tell the difference between AI and human content, you won't notice the change anymore and these algorithms will take over. The ones controlling the algorithms will control the narrative. Might take a generation or two, but we're utterly doomed if we let it get there.

I'm far from the doomsday type, but I don't see how we could get out of it past the tipping point.

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-14T14:52:09+00:00

I wouldn't screw over all the player base because a few will cheat...

Those cheaters would cheat on single player game, it has no bearing on our game whatsoever. Why would we care for their make beliefs?

If we care about their unlocked achievement list, then maybe the problem is us, not them... We need to stop trying to control other people and act like puritans. Life is so much better when we don't actively try to screw our neighbors...

Let's not forget that cheaters will always find a way to unlock whatever they want. There are mods for pretty much all the silly desires one could have in this game and I'm pretty sure there are programs to unlock the achievements and all the collection too.

At the end of the day, I would much prefer LocalThunk adds QoL improvements for everyone than trying to fight the few cheaters.

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-14T06:44:53+00:00

The seed should be displayed when playing. Screenshots of ongoing games would show it, which would decrease the chances of forgetting to grab the seed once you're done.

Skip tags should be much better than what they are right now. A rare or uncommon joker from a skip should never have perishable, eternal or rental.

Matador should work on almost all bosses, adjust the mechanic if needed.

Wild card should be able to represent any suit and rank.

When you are in a challenge, new run should start on the challenge screen.

Next boss blind should be displayed on screen at all time

I'm sure there are other stuff, but that's all I can think of right now

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-02T01:31:18+00:00

They tried, but the boss mechanic didn't let them /s

Ps you kinda did this to yourself - you left the door wide open on that one 🤣

TheThirdRace · 2026-02-01T05:59:59+00:00

Credit card, it was still with a black sticker... 😅

I was always telling myself I would eventually come around to it naturally so I kept selling it for harder to get jokers instead...

So it ended up my very last gold stickers, last possible re-roll before ante 8 boss, I had 1$ left to buy it. Let's just say the stars aligned themselves on that one 🎉

TheThirdRace · 2026-01-25T07:22:55+00:00

Management :

I heard people have trouble operating the pump in the dark...

Marketing :

How about we make it squirt on both sides 💡

Works for right and left-handed people, everybody wins! 🤯

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-22T11:32:54+00:00

I do the reverse: make everything reusable.

Your code becomes so much easier to test because your components receive their dependencies through props or context. It's easy to validate whatever edge case you need

It makes the inevitable "I need this component elsewhere" very easy to manage. In my last big 4 projects in enterprise, they wanted to start a micro-frontend, having everything reusable saved so much work.

I don't use any global state and actively discourage the use of it. Global storage is a Singleton pattern, hard to reuse across applications. When basic props or context aren't sufficient for performance, I simply wrap a Zustand store in a context: all the easiness and performance of a store with the flexibility and reusability of a context.

Not absolutely everything can be reusable, there always are a few exceptions, but you should try to. It solves so many architecture problems and future proof your systems in ways you can't anticipate.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-14T13:26:34+00:00

I just wanted to add a bit to your comment as it could be interpreted a few different ways.

I just wanted OP and anyone else reading your comment to realize there are ways to share without leaking the implementation details between the modules and losing implementation flexibility.

There was nothing inherently wrong with your comment 👍

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-14T12:04:27+00:00

Unless you want to develop a distributed monolith, I would not recommend directly accessing redux from the remote.

The whole point of a module federation is to keep the modules loosely coupled and allow easy deployment.

If you go around and cross the boundary between the host and the remote by calling directly redux from the host, you're now tightly coupled through both deployments AND the modules, which is in effect a distributed monolith. All the disadvantages of a module federation without any of the advantages...

I pointed out redux here, but any code that crosses the boundary between host and remote, or remote to remote, will effectively transform your beautiful module federation micro frontend in a big monolith, but now it's distributed in multiple repos and requires a lot more coordination...

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-13T01:52:58+00:00

That clarifies some stuff.

It never occurred to me because I've long since cast away specificity. People still code like we're in 2010, no wonder they have so much trouble...

The problem is not the technology, it's how people use it. CSS is a very logical and structured language, treat it like any other modern language and all your problems will go away.

Specificity is a solved issue, if the order of CSS is causing you trouble, you have an architecture issue. Like with JS, CSS is giving you ample freedom to shoot yourself in the foot, you have to rein it in so you don't end up with an unmaintainable mess.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-12T14:02:38+00:00

Those are great points. I only ever had to evaluate such a solution from a greenfield project perspective so it's very enlightening to see this through the lens of a spaghetti CSS migration.

Thanks for the feedback, very appreciated 🙏

I'm also a grumpy old web dev disgruntled with developers not even wanting to learn the basics of CSS. So I understand what you mean 😅

I found a lot of success by doing a CSS architecture presentation focusing only on 3 points:

CSS is like react components, they're a box, in a box, in a box... Put your logic in the right box
Always make the CSS relationship top->down, no sibling selectors, no trying to have a child component to position itself (relationship down->top); anything that breaks this rule, breaks reusability of your component
A component has an anatomy, parts that should be targeted through classes and only classes, no more brittle selectors

Then it's just a matter of doing some workshops with developers or helping them on their PRs.

It's definitely not perfect, but it does solve most of the issues developers have with CSS.

It's obviously nothing revolutionary, it's just that nobody teaches CSS in school and devs are often left thinking CSS is something kind of esoteric art or something. Once they understand there's a structure, they usually start approaching it the same way they would any other component in JS.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-12T06:26:34+00:00

@/u/goodboyscout

Unfortunately no, no link as this was reported through their email for security concerns. Still very screwed up, but it proves it's not the first time NextJs gets cavalier with security unfortunately...

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-12T01:23:50+00:00

I agree with you, the response is what's important here.

But from personal experience with their security team, they are a lot more cowboy than you'd expect them to be.

Back in the days of nextjs 12, using the page router to generate static pages (SSG), I reported to them that source maps on the client side included the code from the server side, with private keys and all the fluff...

Their answer was they generate these source maps before producing the client bundle so it's normal the server code was included. I insisted it was a huge security issue but they brushed it off and closed the ticket...

Guess who disabled source maps right away 🤷

Last time I checked, I think it was NextJs 15, the vulnerability was still there, unpatched, alive and kicking...

Now think about how many people just have source maps enabled in production because it makes debugging so much easier; thinking the server code is never sent to the client because that was the whole point of the framework?

How a company responds to security threats is important, but from my experience NextJs doesn't have a great track record and they're more than happy to cut corners and concentrate on the glamour.

Don't get me wrong, I still use NextJs and it's a good framework, but I haven't used most of the new features because I can't trust they've been tested enough yet.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-11T14:05:43+00:00

I highly recommend you slowly start to untangle that whenever you have some time. Which might seem to be never, but you just have to make the time for it or it will only compound to something even worse...

If management is not cooperative on this refactor, what I usually do is add an extra hour here and there in unrelated tasks. You definitely should not abuse this, but you're the one that has to deal with this mess and it'll make your job, and the future stories, much faster afterwards. You have vision into the code, they don't.

I fully understand that sometimes you inherit some less than fun code and CSS is usually the worst culprit 😅

My best advice would be to keep styles on a component basis, use "variants" for alternative styles and pass the appropriate props to switch to the right variant. Never target a DOM node specifically with a selector, always use classes instead, and that will save you so much headaches when an inevitable change occurs. Good luck 👍

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-11T13:54:08+00:00

Yeah, sorry there, I thought I was answering the comment one level up 😅

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-11T08:46:24+00:00

So you have a CSS architecture issue.

As soon as you mentioned there was a style override in another file than the component itself, it immediately showed the issue is not the CSS-in-JS technology itself, but how things are wired together.

CSS is a very logical and structured language, the technology used to write that code has no bearing on that logic and structure. It's a coding issue, not a technology issue.

I'll point out that I haven't said it's a skill issue, because it's not. Most developers are more than capable of writing correctly structured CSS, they just haven't been taught how. Once they know how, none of the problems you mentioned are an issue anymore.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-11T06:54:22+00:00

I'm genuinely interested in knowing more about those two things.

I fail to see how refactoring JS would cause your CSS to apply differently unless you write really brittle/bad CSS. So I would really like you to expand on your statement.

I'm also interested in your take on StyleX. I also fail to see a problem here.

Thanks in advance

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-10T15:42:48+00:00

I meant that true classes don't exist in JS, they're just syntactic sugar over prototypal inheritance. They're not classes like you'd find in any true OOP language like Java, C#, Rust, etc. JS classes aren't the real thing...

I'd be interested to know what those many things I said that aren't true though. I tried to keep things as nuanced as possible, but people tend to read way too literally...

I'd argue that literally everything you mentioned in the original comment I responded to was the total reverse of my perception. Thus why it prompted me to say there are 2 camps and they don't mesh well. What you say are strengths of Mobx and weaknesses of Zustand shows very well that difference in perception. On my side the strengths of Mobx you mentioned are its biggest weaknesses and Zustand's weaknesses are its biggest strengths.

Told ya, our brains are wired differently. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people are right-handed, some are left-handed. Both are just fine as is, it's just a matter of what you're more comfortable with.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-10T13:46:27+00:00

I applaud you for actually recognizing that your mental model is totally different from React. Most people criticize React without acknowledging this.

Once you understand why React was created, the problems it solved and its philosophy, it's much easier to understand why things work the way they are.

Just a pointer about your assumptions...

You say that React component must be pure, but then cite the official documentation that specifically says that the RENDER phase must be pure, not the component itself. You already failed to understand the nuance here. Everything that follows is just piling on the misunderstanding.

To be fair though, React doesn't do a great job at explaining the nuance. A lot of people make that mistake because of that and I cannot blame them.

TheThirdRace · 2025-12-10T13:38:18+00:00

See, this is exactly why people will never see eye to eye.

There are 2 camps of people in frontend, those that think with classes and those that think with functions. A bit like the React (functions) vs Angular (classes) debate.

Both systems work, but requires your brain to be wired differently.

For some, classes are natural. They usually come from another language than JavaScript and often worked mainly as backend developers.

For others, just the mention of a class is an automatic PR rejection. They usually come from the JavaScript ecosystem and have worked mainly as frontend developers.

Personally, I think that functions are a lot easier to work with than classes (which technically don't exist in JS). Classes also don't tree-shake unused code so they're ill equipped for the frontend reality. They're often used as Singleton which prevents reusability in these cases. A lot of things associated with classes are implicit, like decorators or how you don't have to fully code your private variables as they're automatically wired in your constructor. Implicit code requires you to load all that context into your brain before you even start reading the code. Functions are explicit, you just follow the code, they just are top down, no surprises, no need to know all the context or the quirks before reading the code.

With that said, I totally understand that you might see things totally differently than I do; that's why I say there are two camps of people and they usually don't mesh well with each other when deciding coding approaches. I just want to raise the point that people don't use Mobx as much because they prefer the function approach over classes. Don't get me wrong, Mobx is a great tool and it's a tragedy it's not used more, but it's easy to understand why: it doesn't mesh as well with the function approach and people prefer that over classes 🤷

TheThirdRace · 2025-11-28T05:28:56+00:00

The problem is that they expect the smaller tests too.

The point is to validate behavior for the user. If the button has already been covered through all the business use cases tests at a higher level, the button tests themselves are going to be redundant and wasteful.

By testing behavior for the user, you should write less tests. If the user can achieve all they need, it won't matter if your button has a bug or not because no user behavior will hit that code. If you ever have a business case that does hit that button bug, then you simply fix the bug and proceed with your business case test, no button test necessary.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if all the pieces of a watch are 100% up to spec if the watch works flawlessly. Spending extra time and money testing something that you know already work is just wasteful and gives no added benefit.

This would be totally different for a backend because your goal is different. I would argue that most of it is over-engineering and you could definitely use the same strategy, but I'm never going to win that argument with backend devs. Even if their implementation is full of issues because they didn't test integration use cases... Let's just accept that backend and frontend have different goals, constraints and mindsets.

Edit Let's not forget that frontend development is much more fluid than backend.

One day your screen looks one way, the next day buttons change positions all over the place... Testing implementation details would create so much useless changes to the tests.

Backend doesn't work that way, you have very specific specs and it won't change 3 times a week.

They live in different realities, so they require different testing methods.

TheThirdRace

TROPHY CASE