I applaud it so heavily for putting front and center the issues that it did. I also thought its female characters were really strong, despite some faltering in the final season. I tend to overlook flaws if I'm enraptured by theme and concept; and although Mr. Robot definitely had some flaws, more often than not I found its formal and technical proficiency to be wonderful complements to its thematic concerns. As far as other top favorites, right now those would be The Expanse and True Detective (season one). A few years ago it probably would have been Breaking Bad and The Americans, but a few things have happened in years since. Although the second and third seasons of TD are lackluster, subsequent viewing of season one enhance what I think is its narrative perfection. On top of that, it's a Lovecraftian horror story smuggled into mainstream television in the guise of a police procedural, and Pizzolatto even managed to magnify the epistemological anxieties that inform both genres. It's just formal perfection. The Expanse is obviously ongoing, but I'm so impressed with what the writers have done and how they've managed to keep pace that it's ascended the ranks. I also think it's one of the most politically engaged, culturally diverse, and narratively robust (while still being accessible) shows around, and it's science fiction. Not the easiest combo to pull off. It's entirely possible that it could sink down on my list if future seasons take a shit. I acknowledge the excellence of shows like Mad Men, Fargo, Better Call Saul, and plenty of others; but too many of these conform to what I think is, generally speaking, a middlebrow realism with flashes of absurdist surrealism (to varying degrees). Full-blown anti-realist narratives are difficult to do well onscreen, but when they succeed they tend to win me over. Spoiler There's a quote near the end of William Gibson's Neuromancer, when the eponymous AI says to Case, "Personality is my medium." I think Mr. Robot was an experiment in the artificiality, fluidity, and contingency of personality. In this sense, its title was perfect: not just the name of his alter-father personality, but a comment on the technicity of cognition. The revelation that Elliot was just another personality drove this home; it's turtles all the way down, personalities built on (or alongside) personalities. I've never been a fan of relatability as a defining quality of good narrative, and I like it when stories undermine relatability in strategic ways. So in Mr. Robot, the conceptual question is: why shouldn't an artificial personality be relatable? Why do we hunger for real, authentic personalities, especially when an artificial personality has the experience of being real? I think the final shot of the show was sheer perfection in that it displaced the purportedly "real" Elliot onto us, the viewing audience. Everything we saw on TV, in the show, were only interfaces--screens playing constructed personalities. I do think it could be argued that the conclusion privileged a return, or resurfacing, of authenticity, the final access of authenticity, or something like that; but I also think it's crucial that the show never lets us see it (additionally, it's possible to make a quasi-Luddite reading of the conclusion--that the show is saying technology only ever allows access to mediated versions of one another--but I'd push beyond this and say that we're always only ever dealing with mediated versions of each other; "personality is our medium"). I agree with some of your comments about pacing in the final season, but the anti-realist, anti-authenticity drive won me over.