In the first, who lives in Paris is an integrated relative clause. In the second, it’s a supplementary relative clause. Those, at least, are the terms used in ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’. Such clauses are also known as ‘defining / non-defining’ and ‘restrictive / non-restrictive’.
The first sentence suggests that the speaker has more than one friend. It allows us to believe that the speaker may have friends who live in New York, London and Berlin, as well as the one who lives in Paris. From the second, we understand that the speaker has only one friend and that that friend lives in Paris. It is supplementary, because we can remove the clause and still be left with a viable sentence. A supplementary relative clause merely provides additional information.
In writing, it is the convention to place commas around a supplementary relative clause, as shown. It is possible to indicate more clearly when a relative clause is integrated, rather than supplementary, by substituting that for who (or which). A supplementary relative clause is not normally introduced by that. In speech, a supplementary relative clause is indicated by intonation and by a slight pause at the start and end of the relative clause.
EDIT:
OK, OK. Sentence 2 envisages only one friend in the context of the sentence. Here’s how the clauses might occur for real.
Sentence 1
I know people in several European cities, and I suppose they’re all my
friends, really. The one in Berlin, I don’t know her quite so well as
the others, but my friend who lives in Paris, now she’s really great
fun.
Sentence 2
So, this friend of mine told me what happened to her last year. I was
really amazed, but tell me what you think. See, my friend, who lives in Paris,
was on her way to work one morning when she saw what she thought was
an accident in the Rue de Rivoli . . .
Here's an interesting old explanation I've found (just removed some obsoletely used commas and added emphasis where it seemed useful):
The difference between words, esteemed synonymous... (p. 73 Trusler,
John, 1735-1820)
- Furthermore, Moreover, Besides.
Furthermore is properly used when there is need only to add one more reason to those before-mentioned; its intent is to multiply and
it has no relation but to number.
Moreover is in its right place
when used to add a reason of a different kind to those that went
before; its chief office is to add, with a particular respect, to
diversity.
Besides is used with propriety when we would
strengthen by a new reason the force of those that were sufficient
of themselves; its principal office is to enhance by abundance.
[examples:]
For a state to support itself, those who govern should be moderate; those who ought to obey, governable; furthermore, the laws should
be judicious. There will always be war among men, because they are
naturally ambitious and are governed by interest; moreover, zeal
for religion makes them rigid. Holy Scripture teaches us the unity of
the Godhead and reason points it out to us: besides, all nature
makes us perceive it.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004892937.0001.001/1:7.58?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
Best Answer
If something is more popular by 43%, that means it is 43% more popular than the next most popular item (whether absolute or relative is left ambiguous).
If it's more popular at 43%, that is what it's percentage is - the next most popular item may be at 42%, for example.
Basically the difference lies in whether or not the percentage given is relative to the next most popular item. I would say that the usage in your example is mistaken - or at least very unclear